afdave
Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006
|
HOW MANY "KINDS" WERE ON THE ARK?
(It seems that Eric is about to blow a gasket crunching numbers of species, so I feel the need to prevent that from happening.)
If we just grab an easily accesible list (from Wikipedia) we have ... | Quote |
As a soft guide, however, the numbers of currently identified species can be broken down as follows[3]:
287,655 plants, including:
15,000 mosses,
13,025 ferns,
980 gymnosperms,
199,350 dicotyledons,
59,300 monocotyledons;
74,000-120,000 fungi[1];
10,000 lichens;
1,250,000 animals, including:
1,190,200 invertebrates:
950,000 insects,
70,000 molluscs,
40,000 crustaceans,
130,200 others;
58,808 vertebrates:
29,300 fish,
5,743 amphibians,
8,240 reptiles,
9,934 birds,
5,416 mammals.
However the total number of species for some phyla may be much higher:
5-10 million bacteria[2];
1.5 million fungi[1]; |
Woodmorappe has written a book studying this question called Noah's Ark: A Feasability Study and the high points of this study (1996) and the previous study in The Genesis Flood (1961) are found here ...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/answersbook/arksize13.asp
Mark Isaak has written a rebuttal of Woodmorappe and Morris on Talk Origins, but the rebuttal does not accomplish his purpose of showing the impossibility of the Noah's Ark account. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
Glenn Morton has also written a rebuttal here. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodmorappe-review.html
I have not read Woodmorappe's book or Glenn Morton's rebuttal yet, but I ordered the Woodmorappe book today, and I plan on reading Morton's rebuttal as well. I would encourage anyone interested in this topic to do likewise.
The only thing I really know at the moment about this topic is ...
1) Most of the species listed above would not have to be represented on the ark ... Morris & Whitcomb stated only reptiles, birds and mammals needed representation. If this is true, then the number of modern species represented would be 8240 + 9934 + 5416 =~ 23,000. Morton and Isaak say that terrestrial invertebrates like snails would have also needed to be included, but offer no proof, so this is debatable.
2) As I am beginning to see from my own research, rapid speciation is inversely correlated with population size and that newly isolated founder populations can speciate quite rapidly. I have referred to one such study on salmon which diversified into two reproductively isolated species in just 13 generations. There are more examples at Talk Origins and probably elsewhere. The conditions after the Flood would have created excellent circumstances for geographic isolation of founder populations ... i.e. land bridges between newly separated continents, followed by cutting off of populations by rising sea levels following the Ice Age.
3) There is some evidence that Noah's cubit could have been much longer than the commonly accepted value of about 18 inches. The Royal Astronomer for Scotland, who reportedly, with John Herschel, kept Britain off the metric system for many years, writes that Sir Isaac Newton did a rigorous study called Dissertation on Cubits and concluded there was an ancient sacred cubit preserved by the Jews of around 25" (in addition to the 20.68" cubit which is well known). Contrast this with 18" cubit assumed by most modern Bible scholars who describe the ark. If this is true, then we have significantly more space in the ark than Woodmorappe proposes. I have not been able to obtain the Newton paper, but Wikipedia reports various lengths of the cubit through history, some as high as 27 inches. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubit
Let us take some wild guesses and do some math ... after all, this is what scientists do ... they observe evidence, make some wild initial guesses, then test these guesses, then make a formal theory if the intial wild guesses hold up to scrutiny.
IF we take an average generation time of 5 years for animals on the ark, and IF we assume an average of 20 generations to produce a new species, and IF we have 50,000 modern species representing the original kinds on the ark (being generous to Morton and Isaak), where does this leave us if we have 4500 years since the Flood?
Well, let's take Woodmorappe's guess of 16,000 animals on the ark. This probably represents about 7,000? kinds. Now using "hand grenade math" with the assumptions above, these could theoretically diversify into 14,000 in 5 years, 28,000 in 10 years and 56,000 in 15 years. Now of course this calculation would only apply if ALL the kinds split into two distinct species every 5 years, and these new species in turn split into two new species, etc. Obviously this would not happen, but it gives you a feeling for the ease of getting from 7000 distinct kinds to 50,000 distinct species in 4500 years. Adjust your average generation time to 10 years if you like. Assume that only 50% of the original kinds speciate into new species if you like. Assume that many species "terminate" after a certain point and don't speciate any more. As you can see there is ample room for vast adjustment of the numbers and still have no problem coming up with 50,000 modern species developing in 4500 years from 7000 original kinds on the ark.
****************************************
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Jeannot wants to know what "genetically rich" means.
ANSWER: Imagine a subset of a population being removed from the parent population and isolated from that parent population. What will happen? My understanding is that the smaller group will be more specialized than the parent population because it will not have access to some of the genetic information contained in the original group. Consider dogs. All the modern dogs have been domesticated from wild dogs, right? Now breeders have created many specialized varieties by selecting dogs with desired traits and isolating and breeding them. Do you think that we could get a Great Dane from a pair of Chihuahuas? No. Why? The chihuahuas don't have the genetic information required to create a Great Dane. Was there an ancestral pair of dogs (a mutt) that possessed the genetic info for both Great Danes AND Chihuahuas? Undoubtedly there was. And this mutt pair would have been more "genetically rich" than either the Great Danes or the Chihuahuas. This is what I mean by "genetically rich."
Here's an interesting quote that sheds some light on the salt water issue. Some have asked how sea creatures could survive going from fresh water to salt water. I don't know, but here's some info on salmon that could shed some light on this ... Salmon apparently have a system for changing their body chemistry to allow them live in fresh water during their youth and breeding times, and salt water during most of their adulthood ...
********************************************
PORTUGUESE = SPANISH + FRENCH + OTHER FACTORS
(Posted originally in response to Rilke's Granddaughter who attacked me for making a casual reference to Portuguese being a mixture of Spanish and French)
(Posted again now because Arden Chatfield apparently is still miffed that his arguments were not as good as mine in spite of the fact that he is a linguist. He lost the debate back then and it was actually one of the few debates at ATBC that I have actually had some agreement from other ATBC members. Also note that Arden claims that people would have respected me if I had simply admitted defeat on this topic. This is ludicrous and is plainly false simply by examining the threads PRIOR TO the Portuguese debate. This debate itself was precipitated by a blatant ad hominem by Rilke. It is quite clear why I am not respected by some people here at ATBC ... I am a creationist. PERIOD. End of story. Need more proof? Look at the thread started by 'skeptic' called 'Reinventing Evolutionary Theory.' He simply SMELLED like a creationist and he was immediately and continuously ridiculed.)
Arden, my advice to you is to read your own post and follow the advice written there ... admit that YOU were the one who was wrong ... not me. The truth is that I have quite prominently admitted that I have been wrong about certain details when the evidence is clear ... Chimp chromosomes, a study in the UK, maybe a couple other things. You, on the other hand, have not admitted you have been wrong about anything that I can remember.
REHASHING THE EVIDENCE
My original quote from Wikipedia ... (sometime in May or June?)
| Quote | | Although the vocabularies of Spanish and Portuguese are quite similar, phonetically Portuguese is somewhat closer to Catalan or to French. It is often claimed that the complex phonology of Portuguese compared to Spanish explains why it is generally not intelligible to Spanish speakers despite the strong lexical similarity between the two languages |
April 28, 2006 Version of the "Portuguese" article from Wikipedia ...
| Quote | On the other hand, Portuguese is phonetically closer to French and Catalan than to Spanish in some respects; such as the occurrence of nasalization, palatalization, diphthongization of low-mid stressed vowels, aspiration of /f/, and devoicing of sibilants — all features that are not shared by Spanish. The same can be said of the basic vocabularies: compare e.g. Portuguese bom ("good") with French or Catalan bon and Spanish bueno; or Portuguese filha with French fille, Catalan filla, and Spanish hija.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w....0655924 |
Many of you probably know that Wikipedia changes all the time. One can only guess why these paragraphs are no longer in the current version. Actually, I guess you could research the question if you really wanted to spend the time.
and... | Quote | | Portuguese and Spanish were essentially the same language until about AD 1143, when Portugal broke away from Spanish control. World Book, 1993, "Portuguese Language." |
I believe the 2006 version says the same thing.
And the local linguist, Arden Chatfield, said that my claim may be true if you can show significant French influence on Portugal (which I did ... keep reading ... it happened in the 12th century).
If you get a good Medieval History Encyclopedia, you can get all kinds of details about this period in history when Portuguese and Spanish diverged. What you will see is massive Burgundian (French) influence beginning with the influx of contingents of Burgundian knights in response to Alfonso VI who had a Burgundian wife, then the Burgundian Henry, grandson of Robert I of Burgundy then to Afonso Henriques, son of Henry. Afonso Henriques captures Lisbon and sets up his capital.
(Dictionary of the Middle Ages, v. 10, 1988, American Council of Learned Societies) (From the public library, a famous, non-YEC source)
Then if you do some further reading, you find out that standard Portuguese is based on the dialect of Lisbon, according to Encyclopedia Brittanica. | Quote | Portuguese Português. Romance language spoken in Portugal, Brazil, and Portuguese colonial and formerly colonial territories. Galician, spoken in northwestern Spain, is a dialect of Portuguese. Written materials in Portuguese date from a property agreement of the late 12th century, and literary works appeared in the 13th and 14th centuries.
Standard Portuguese is based on the dialect of Lisbon. Dialectal variation within the country is not great, but Brazilian Portuguese varies from European Portuguese in several respects, including several sound changes and some differences in verb conjugation and syntax; for example, object pronouns occur before the verb in Brazilian Portuguese, as in Spanish, but after the verb in standard Portuguese. The four major dialect groups of Portuguese are Northern Portuguese, or Galician, Central Portuguese, Southern Portuguese (including the dialect of Lisbon), and Insular Portuguese (including Brazilian and Madeiran). Portuguese is often mutually intelligible with Spanish despite differences in phonology, grammar, and vocabulary.
Portuguese language. (2006). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved October 17, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9061011 |
Can you guess that Lisbon probably had greater French influence than anywhere else in Portugal? Remember? Afonso Henriques captures Lisbon and sets up his capital.
(Side Note: This was the first major instance of a non-sensical "quote mine" charge, of which now there have been many more, equally non-sensical. Faid said I quote mined by quoting EB as saying "Standard Portuguese is based on the dialect of Lisbon." Many hopeful "Creo-snipers" jumped on the bandwagon with Faid. This is an obviously absurd charge as anyone can see from the full quote above.)
Hmmm ... let's think now ... Spanish and Portuguese are the same language until 1143 ... then a whole bunch of French knights come into western Spain to help out the king who has a French wife. Another French guy comes into Spain and marries a Spanish wife. They take over Lisbon and set up the Kingdom of Portugal. Do you see what's happening? This is not rocket science folks. This is kind of like 1+2=3. See? Spanish + French = Portuguese. (And some other factors, admittedly)
FRENCH AND PORTUGUESE WORD COMPARISONS
Also, someone asked about word comparisons. Here you go. I hope the table comes out OK.
Spanish haber hombre cuerpo noche hijo hecho bueno y
Portug haver homem corpo noite filho feito bom e
French avoir homme corps nuit fils fait bon et
http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t2275-0.htm
Now if you have all three of these languages in your own family (my mother speaks fluent Portuguese and Spanish and my cousin speaks fluent French), you tend to have a little better overview of these languages than the average person. I can tell you that if you have heard all three languages like I have, the mix is quite obvious.
And if you think and are honest, instead of just shooting your mouth off about how all YECs are stupid idiots, you can see how Wikipedia would make a statement like ...
phonetically Portuguese is somewhat closer to Catalan or to French. (by the way, Catalan was the language of Andorra -- just below France on the map)
OK, Arden. Now you have a choice. You can admit that you were wrong ... OR ...
You can do some more weaseling ... (AGAIN)
*********************************
Mike PSS-- Kindly repost your latest argument and my latest rebuttal so I will know where we are ... it's been a long time ago.
**********************************
Deadman-- Your quotes of Michael Denton in Nature's Destiny do nothing to change his expose in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. I have already said that he is still an evolutionist in spite of the evidence that he himself has given. He has not repudiated the evidence. He merely has no other option but to believe in ToE. Why? Because he refuses to accept the truth -- Creationism and the Biblical account. As I have said many times, scientists really have no other options but ToE or Creationism. And if they refuse Creationism, then they are left with ToE in spite of the illogical nature of the theory and the required closing of the eyes to the evidence.
So in short, Denton closes his eyes to the hideous spectacle, holds his nose to avoid the stench, and declares "I believe in Evolution!"
Amazing!!
--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com
|
Salmon populations are pretty much reproductively isolated by their very nature. Straying rates are typically less than 1%. Furthermore, genetics can identify the reproductive isolation of stocks with different run times in the same bloody river (e.g., spring/summer/fall/winter run Chinook). Similarly, there's a great deal of reproductive isolation across year classes. That's what high stream fidelity, high run-time fidelity, and conserved generations will give you.
