pkostrze

Assuming the ark myth were to be true, what would the smallest number of each species need to be to successfully re-populate the earth with the smallest number of inbreeding caused defects? I'm no geneticist but I'm pretty sure it's larger than two.

Jedi Mind Trick

I don't know for sure but I think a viable population numbers in the hundreds.

Larsguy47

Interesting, but I believe there was supplemental restoration of some species and perhaps brand new adaptations. There were major climatic changes after Flood. Before, there was a canopy of solid, clear ice surrounding the planet, as if it was encased in glass that permitted a greenhouse affect. Once that was vaporized and caused to fall to the earth then there were seasons. Perhaps that this point the earth was tilted on its axis, not sure.

But along with that you have all these species that have to now adapt to very cold weather and snow. Certain birds became migratory. Bears began to hibernate. All kinds of adaptations for plants and animals in a new ecosystem. What about pinquins? Their location and their nature?

So just because the Bible doesn't specifically say it, it doesn't preclude that there wasn't some supplemental recreation, species designed to support the new ecosystem, etc.

But having noted that, what Noah took on the ark was... selective?

Larsguy47

Jedi Mind Trick

Larsguy47,
Are you saying that God *Poofed* these "supplemental species" into existence to help replenish the gene pool?

Amaleq13

I've read estimates from population genetics ranging from 200 to 500 as the MVP (minimal viable population) but, yes, two is out of the question absent appeals to magical intervention.

pharoah

:notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy: Thanks for this, it's the best chuckle that I've had in a while.

Splarnst

Do you have any evidence for this? Or is it perhaps a totally ad hoc hypothesis in order to support your belief in the truth of the Bible in the face of simple scientific fact?

Pinquins? Is that some strange Biblical beast? :wave:

So we either conclude the flood story was...

an ancient myth written by scientifically illiterate people

OR

a complete waste of time by an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent deity who completely changed the earth, magically repopulating every single of millions of species of animals away from the ark (because the two or seven on board are not viable) and totally altering basic animal nature, so that a tiny band of his extra special friends could have semi-coherent story about God's wrath against even little babies because they did exactly how he created them to be

Hmm. What a dilemma!

Jedi Mind Trick

Larsguy,
Why did God go to the trouble of having two of every kind of animal etc. board the Ark if he was just going to *POOF* them into existence after the flood anyway? Did he *POOF* more humans into existence to help with the human gene pool?

This is hilarious if I understand you correctly.

Fortuna

As for your ice canopy, there are a couple of factors that you seem to be unaware of. The first is boiling/freezing point depression as pressure decreases. As you might be aware, water can be boiled at ambient temperature(20C) using a simple water aspirator.(a device hooked to a water faucet that creates a slight vacuum). Still, I hate to think of just how low the BP of water would be outside of the earth's atmosphere and how devastating that will be to your contention here. I am aware of the latent heat of fusion that would need to be overcome first. but given the second factor, I don;t think that's going to be much of a problem.(I could be wrong, if you want to continue with this silly argument , I'll get the data)

But, the second factor is solar radiation. We see the tails on comets that come even within an earth radius of the sun. That tail is ice and frozen material being melted and boiled away.
I'll get some more info on this, but I honestly don;t think an "ice canopy" around the earth would last very long at all.

And let's not even wonder how the solar radiation would penetrate such a structure and warm the earth, even considering some sort of greenhouse effect.

Then there is the problem of where did all that extra water go.


Secondly, you say ;

OK, good. Now that's a testable hypothesis. We already have ice cores (you can link to that for an explanation of ice core dating, seasonal variation and more, here's the Wiki entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core) that easily pre-date the estimated time of Noah's flood (some as great as 60K years I believe that I've read), so, we should definitely be able to see such a change in seasonal patterns in those cores. There is a good bit of that kind of data because of the global warming debate and with trying to figure out global temperature/seasonal variations. There are also ocean floor cores that can be used to supplement ice cores data, or use on their own.

And what you have proposed here, from no seasonal variation to seasonal variation within such a short period of time, should be easily detectable in those ice cores.


Now, before I even bother to go check this out, what do you think the data is going to tell us about your "no seasons before Noah's flood" ?

Quickly now , before I find the data, you had better think of something better ! Or, are you going to try to refute the ice core data as not valid somehow.

No, I'll wait and see if you want to back off from this silly explanation first. I don't think it is going to hold up when the data is presented .(on the ice core data and your seasonal hypothesis, I'm afraid you're definitely dead in your own crystalline vapor canopy)

John Kesler

If seasons didn't exist prior to the flood, then how do you explain Genesis 1:14?