While reading a young-earth book: re Noah

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

I have two questions about a global flood, from reading Jonathan Safarti's book, "Refuting Compromise," the estimate seems to be that there were about 8,000 "kinds" on Noah's ark (p. 276), and that there are about 5-50 million species (as biologists define them now) on the earth today (p. 280).

So let's round up to 10,000 species (surely a "kind" would be called at least a species nowadays), and then let's say 10 million species came from these (which seems conservative, considering extinctions). Now Safarti says only about 2% of all species are vertebrates, yet this assumes that all invertabrates can survive a long flood, when in fact, they can't. But let's grant this premise, and also remove 29,000 marine vertebrates and amphibians (p. 282), to get about 170,000 new species from the ones on the ark, over about 5,000 years, or about 34 new species (again as biologists define them) every year, on average. Now let's not get sidetracked saying a species is not a "kind," I agree, and yet we have to get from 10,000 of what a biologist would call a species, to 170,000 of them, in about 5,000 years.

Now I have been around about 50 years, so that would mean about 1,700 new species in my lifetime! And if that is the case, why are the ecologists worried about a few extinctions?

And I really don't think there have been that many new species in my lifetime, not anywhere near that much.

Also, on pages 260-263, the explanation for the physical mechanism that caused the flood was continental plates sinking. Which caused the ocean floors to sink (then I am wondering how the water level rose as a result), and also the mountaintops rose (and I am wondering how the water then covered all the mountains, Safarti's proposal also involves the mountains being much lower than they are today). Also, the single original continental plate broke, and magma contacting water produced steam, some at the escape velocity of the earth or beyond (wouldn't that decrease the amount of water?), and some that fell again as rain, and this is said to possibly be "the fountains of the deep" (but how would this raise the water level, if the water came from the sea after the flood began?).

Blessings,
Lee

[Ruth]

New species?! There's no such thing as new species. The lie of evilution has grabbed your soul! Every species is as it was when god made them in the beginning 6000 years ago. Noah's air craft carrier took them all to safety. Then the dinosaurs all drowned and the wooly mammoths froze. You need faith!

[lee_merrill]

Hi Ruth,

Every species is as it was when god made them in the beginning 6000 years ago. Noah's air craft carrier took them all to safety. Then the dinosaurs all drowned and the wooly mammoths froze. You need faith!
Well, I'm willing to believe this, or not, only I would like to have reasons, since dinosaurs and mammoths are not mentioned specifically in Scripture, nor is "after their kind" necessarily a limit. I do think a kind here, if the animal is a purple martin, means a purple martin.

Blessings,
Lee

P.S. I should have said "10 million species exist today," instead of "10 million species came from these," in the first post.

[Hypertox]

Hi Lee,

Your first question appears to rest partly upon what we understand "species' and "kinds" to be, and partly on the time required for new "species" to appear.

The original created kinds were the groups of animals that could successfully interbreed, so as far as land-dwellers go, it probably would have included a doglike kind, a horselike kind, and so on.

Remember that one pair of animals can have within it an enormous amount of genetic potentional: for instance, it is fair enough to conjecture that all dogs, from wolves to chihuahuas, all descended from a common ancestor, since thay can all successfully interbreed.

Also recall that certain animals classed in different species can interbreed, such as zebras and horses, often producing sterile offspring, but all coming from a common ancestor nonetheless.

So remembering this, we have a look at how quickly animals can separate into
different species from their original created kinds.
The appearing of a new species can happen in as quickly as one generation, with polyploidy (doubling of chromosome count).
More common is loss of genetic information leading to the offspring being unable to breed with the parent population, which can happen in a small number of generations, translating to a very manageable number of years.

So we can see that very quick appearance of new species is quite possible.

When you say you don't think that anywhere near 1,700 species have appeared in your lifetime, have you put any thought to that?
34 new species per year.. that's not so unbelieveable, in fact it is very well supported by current biological research. Have a closer look into the the facts for yourself.

Extinctions are a worry because the particular genetic features displayed in the extinct species have been lost form the parent population.

The 50 million species includes plants!

Your doubts about the amount of water needed have not taken into account underground water. Even now there are huge amounts of bore water. There may well have been large underground reserves of water that fountained out, indeed covering the whole earth, then evaporating and disappearing underground? Then also remember that there was likely a large atmospheric store of water, like the gases surrounding Venus except cooler of course. Think of the 'firmamant' descibed in Genesis.

Well in any case please let me know what you think of my comments.


Cheers big ears!

-Hypertox man

[wdwwilder]

Hi everyone,


Also, on pages 260-263, the explanation for the physical mechanism that caused the flood was continental plates sinking. Which caused the ocean floors to sink (then I am wondering how the water level rose as a result), and also the mountaintops rose (and I am wondering how the water then covered all the mountains, Safarti's proposal also involves the mountains being much lower than they are today). Also, the single original continental plate broke, and magma contacting water produced steam, some at the escape velocity of the earth or beyond (wouldn't that decrease the amount of water?), and some that fell again as rain, and this is said to possibly be "the fountains of the deep" (but how would this raise the water level, if the water came from the sea after the flood began?).

Blessings,
Lee
New Ocean floor is hot and only sinks as the rocks cool

[shunyadragon]

New Ocean floor is hot and only sinks as the rocks cool

Rocks sink? Huh? :huh: Well ah . . . yes, but not because they are cool. Oceans plates form at mid ocean ridges and spread laterally over periods of 100s of millions of years to subduction zones where they desend again because they are denser than the contenental cratons. This primarilly due to the heat convection currents in the earths core.

[Higon]

But let's grant this premise, and also remove 29,000 marine vertebrates and amphibians (p. 282), to get about 170,000 new species from the ones on the ark, over about 5,000 years, or about 34 new species (again as biologists define them) every year, on average. Now let's not get sidetracked saying a species is not a "kind," I agree, and yet we have to get from 10,000 of what a biologist would call a species, to 170,000 of them, in about 5,000 years.

Now I have been around about 50 years, so that would mean about 1,700 new species in my lifetime! And if that is the case, why are the ecologists worried about a few extinctions?

And I really don't think there have been that many new species in my lifetime, not anywhere near that much.

Perhaps you are overlooking the influence of ecological niches in speciation. Assuming that their position is true, then you would have a clean landscape, full of new habitats to be colonized, thus, allowing for greater and faster speciation. Like this:


In general, only one animal or plant can occupy a particular ecological niche - when two organisms try to occupy the same niche they will compete for the same resources, and one will always out-compete the other. However, when a niche becomes vacant - for example when the species which occupied it becomes extinct - there is a race to try and fill it. Mass extinctions open up a multitude of niches, and there is an evolutionary explosion as animals and plants adapt to fill the vacant 'homes'.

I guess you can´t compare this situation with the last 50 years of your life, it would be an exercise in decontextualization. :wink:

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Thanks for your replies...

Hypertox: Remember that one pair of animals can have within it an enormous amount of genetic potential.
Yes, that's fine.

So we can see that very quick appearance of new species is quite possible.
Certainly it's possible, I'm mainly wondering if this fits the rates we see, i.e. if it's probable.

34 new species per year.. that's not so unbelievable, in fact it is very well supported by current biological research.
Well, for insects, one estimate (can't find the web page now) was about 1 in a million years, for a type of insect. Safarti quotes two examples, 300 new cichlid species in one lake, over several thousand years, and a new mosquito species in 100 years. Now none of these examples are for larger land animals! The rate of change for such larger animals will be very much less than for small insects and such, since the larger animals have offspring less often, and the number of offspring is quite a bit less.

The 50 million species includes plants!
Yes, that was a mistake on my part.

There may well have been large underground reserves of water that fountained out...
Yes, I agree, I don't understand Safarti's explanation, which is different, and should not increase the water level.

Higon: Perhaps you are overlooking the influence of ecological niches in speciation.
Yes, but let's remember the poor biologist (http://faculty.plattsburgh.edu/thomas.wolosz/howmanysp.htm) who counted about 1,000 beetle species in one forest! Presumably many (most?) of these species were in the same niche. And Safarti himself has a quote as follows: "we cannot explain from first principles why the global total [of species] is of the general order of 10^7 rather than 10^4 or 10^10" (p. 280). So there might reasonably be 1,000 times more species than we have today, as far as the biologists can see! Not 1,000 more species, 1,000 time 10 million species, 10 billion species...

BBC quote: However, when a niche becomes vacant - for example when the species which occupied it becomes extinct - there is a race to try and fill it. Mass extinctions open up a multitude of niches, and there is an evolutionary explosion as animals and plants adapt to fill the vacant 'homes'.
Certainly, yet we have all those beetles, 350,000 total species, at last count (http://www.si.edu/resource/faq/nmnh/buginfo/beetle.htm). So I don't think a niche is required for a new species, not always, and not even usually, let us remember all the zebras and wildebeest and gazelles that eat together on the African plains.

I guess you can't compare this situation with the last 50 years of your life, it would be an exercise in decontextualization. :wink:

It turns out I haven't lived the last 50 years of my life yet! My next birthday being the 50th one. But I certainly don't want to be a decontextualizarionist!

Blessings,
Lee

[NeilUnreal]

Another problem is (assuming a global flood occurred, and allowing for a massive realignment of archaeological time frames) we know from evidence that would have to be post-flood, that many of the major species we have today would have had to have existed within a few hundred to a thousand years after the flood. By a couple of thousand years or so ago, most of the major biomes and their associated species complements would have had to be close to their historically known forms -- else we would have historical and archaeological records of the changes. (To say nothing of recent fossil and near-fossil remains.)

So the time to get from 10,000 species to 170,000 species is compressed even further. The increase is more like 80 new species per year for the first 2000 years after the flood (mysteriously and coincidentally stopping at about the same time we start getting good archaeological, historical, and recent fossil evidence of current ecosystem structure and taxonomic lists). For all the species to have arisen since a global flood, we'd have to see exactly the kind of events YECs like to scoff at: e.g. lions suddenly giving birth to tigers, etc.

Biogeographically, you also have to leave time for migration and colonization after post-flood speciation events, not just from the time the animals left the ark and any conjectured "post-flood" tectonic or glacial changes occurred. Alternatively, you have to allow for even more rapid speciation after the animals left the ark but before any tectonic or glacial events occurred.

All this is compounded by the problem that there is a continuous record of ecosystem and species development in many areas, extending back into pre-historic times. You can get around this by postulating that much fossil and near-fossil evidence is post-flood, but of course, this even more drastically compresses the timeframe allowed for all the post-flood speciation, tektonic, and glacial events. The alternative is even more unlikely: that "kinds" representing multiple species were on the ark, and that these "kinds" migrated back to just the original areas for their represented species and re-evolved back into just those species -- without leaving evidence of migration or the ecosystems necessary to sustain those migrations.

Furthermore, the current and historical state of many ecosystems -- prairie soil horizon structure, for example -- implies that these ecosystems have been intact for a relatively long time, etc.

-Neil

[grmorton]

New Ocean floor is hot and only sinks as the rocks cool

Sarfati isn't talking about new ocean floor, he said continental plates. THe problem with this time worn Creationist explanation is that the granitic continental platforms float in the underlying mantle. And without some positive push down, they simply won't sink When was the last time you saw an ice cube floating in your drink sink all by itself? It won't happen.

BTW, this idea is so unoriginal as to be laughable. Sarfati, who is said to have an 'amazing mind' is not very creative.

There are some mechanisms within continental drift that will allow a given area of the continents to be pulled down by a subducting slab, but that will only work for regional areas and won't work for all continents at the very same time. And even if one were to appeal to such a mechanism, it would be too slow to fit into the one year flood. The mantle is very very viscous and flows very very slowly. For the past 10,000 years Scandinavia has been uplifting because the weight of the glaciers has been removed. The uplift is a few feet per century, not a massive hundreds of feet in a single week.

[lee_merrill]

Neal: By a couple of thousand years or so ago, most of the major biomes and their associated species complements would have had to be close to their historically known forms -- else we would have historical and archaeological records of the changes.
That's a good point, we understand the animals described in Leviticus as being present-day animals, not fossil exotica. So this reduces the time for the various species to develop to about 1,000 years, if the earth is about 6,000 years old, and the flood happened 1,657 years after Adam (p. 290, i.e. at 2343 B.C.), and the Exodus was about 1,400 B.C., so that would be 170 new species each year, for animals that have the slowest sorts of rates of change.

Grmorton: There are some mechanisms within continental drift that will allow a given area of the continents to be pulled down by a subducting slab, but that will only work for regional areas and won't work for all continents at the very same time. And even if one were to appeal to such a mechanism, it would be too slow to fit into the one year flood.
Well, Safarti appeals to "runaway subduction" due to a cold plate sinking and then heating around the edges to make it sink faster. Now I am not a geologist! But I wonder why it didn't sink beforehand, and also how it stopped. I did find how the sea floor rose, though! The ocean floor was heated, and was therefore lighter, and and therefore rose. Yet how could the ocean floor rise, if it was on top already?

I don't know, all these points he is making seem to argue for the opposite result of the one he is intending, or to be impossible...

Thanks,
Lee

[grmorton]

Well, Safarti appeals to "runaway subduction" due to a cold plate sinking and then heating around the edges to make it sink faster. Now I am not a geologist! But I wonder why it didn't sink beforehand, and also how it stopped. I did find how the sea floor rose, though! The ocean floor was heated, and was therefore lighter, and and therefore rose. Yet how could the ocean floor rise, if it was on top already?

Runaway subduction has real problems. There are thousands of feed of sediment deposited along Africa and North and South America BEFORE the continents split, which is when John Baumgardner, the author of ruanaway subduction says the flood began. That means, that Runaway subduction can only explain PART of the sedimentary column.

Runaway subduction won't work in the way required to cause the continents to sink.