Noah's Flood and Evolution (on steroids)

[Enoch2021]

1 minute ago, one.opinion said:

Thanks for the grammar tip, since it was clearly essential to productive discourse. 

Well it wasn't the Main Point, See: "AND".  It was a little confusing but I muddled through.

 

Quote

Allow me to rephrase. Are you stating that life does not change over time?

Everything 'changes' over time. (SEE: Laws of Entropy, 2LOT)

And someone once said:  If your 'theory' explains everything; then...it explains NOTHING.

 

Quote

Nope, I'm saying that a flood of that magnitude would certainly damage plant life and quite a few species. I never claimed it would wipe out all plant life

Then what is your Actual Argument...?

 

Quote

I note that you offer no explanation for how such a limited number of animal species developed (to avoid using the "e" word) into the number of animal species observed today.

Well...

Your "such a limited number of animal species" is an Abject Conjectured Speculation, Begging The Question Fallacy; so I don't need to offer an extrapolated explanation... off a Myth.

Scientifically Validate the Premise FIRST; then...I'll provide an explanation if needed.

 

regards

[one.opinion]

38 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

Well...

Your "such a limited number of animal species" is an Abject Conjectured Speculation, Begging The Question Fallacy; so I don't need to offer an extrapolated explanation... off a Myth.

Scientifically Validate the Premise FIRST; then...I'll provide an explanation if needed.

True, it is conjecture, but I'll grant the calculations were made very carefully, and by a Young Earth Creationist, so I doubt it is a significant underestimate of the number of species on the ark. The premise is "Young Earth Creationists have attempted to estimate the number of animal species that could have been present on the ark, and it is far short of the number of animal species present on the earth today." Your best explanation so far has been "Pen, Paper, and some Imagination."

[Enoch2021]

46 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

True, it is conjecture

Then there is no sound argument.

 

Quote

but I'll grant the calculations were made very carefully, and by a Young Earth Creationist

1.  It's still -- 'Speculation'. 

2.  Just because he's a Young Earth Creationist and I'm a Young Earth Creationist doesn't Ipso Facto mean we share every single view.  It's called a Stereotype Fallacy for a reason.

 

Quote

so I doubt it is a significant underestimate of the number of species on the ark.

An 'estimate' off a Rubber Ruler ('species') based a Stone Cold Conjecture is not what coherent arguments are made of.

 

Quote

The premise is "Young Earth Creationists have attempted to estimate the number of animal species that could have been present on the ark

I'm a Young Earth Creationist and I've never made such an estimate.  Showing once again why Stereotype Fallacies are Fallacious.

 

Quote

Your best explanation so far has been "Pen, Paper, and some Imagination."

Again, I'm not required... and most certainly don't feel compelled, to give an extrapolated explanation from a Vaguely Ambiguous Abject Conjectured Speculation Begging The Question Fallacy Premise.
It requires no explanation, the premise is fallacious at it's core.

 

ps.  The "Pen, Paper, and Imagination" is quite an apt description for the Taxonomic Classification System.  Watch...

The Taxonomic Classification System is a convention for classification, it's a "man-made" construct and somewhat arbitrary,  i.e., it's a Rubber Ruler.
 
It's based on what the "Conventioneers" deem as similar characteristics then categorize. I can make one up right now...
 
Classification I: Duccolslopelgertz and Sluccols:
 
Duccolslopelgertz: These have hair, hands, forward-facing eyes, smelly armpits, most can calculate correctly 1 + 1 = 2 when challenged.
 
Sluccols: having hands, hair, handlike feet, and forward-facing eyes, agile tree dwellers, they cannot calculate 1 + 1 = 2 when challenged.

Are Duccolslopelgertz, Sluccols ?  NOPE.

 

Classification II:  
 
Duccolslopelgertz:  These have hair, hands, forward-facing eyes.
 
Sluccols: having hands, hair, and forward-facing eyes.

Are Duccolslopelgertz, Sluccols ?  YEP.
 

regards

[Enoch2021]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

the number of animal species that could have been present on the ark, and it is far short of the number of animal species present on the earth today.

See Previous response, everything after: "I'm not required... and most certainly don't feel compelled".

 

However, for a 'General Inquiry' as to the plausibility of how we can get many different varieties of organisms from the flood until now; Well...

"All (sexually reproducing) organisms contain their genetic information in paired form. Each offspring inherits half its genetic information from its mother, and half from its father. So there are two genes at a given position (locus, plural loci) coding for a particular characteristic. An organism can be heterozygous at a given locus, meaning it carries different forms (alleles) of this gene. For example, one allele can code for blue eyes, while the other one can code for brown eyes; or one can code for the A blood type and the other for the B type. Sometimes two alleles have a combined effect, while at other times only one allele (called dominant) has any effect on the organism, while the other does not (recessive). With humans, both the mother’s and father’s halves have 20,687 protein-coding genes, while 97% of the rest of the DNA has an important role in coding for RNA, for control of gene expression. Overall, the information equivalent to a thousand 500-page books (3 billion base pairs, as Teaching about Evolution correctly states on page 42). The ardent neo-Darwinist Francisco Ayala points out that humans today have an ‘average heterozygosity of 6.7 percent.’¹  This means that for every thousand gene pairs coding for any trait, 67 of the pairs have different alleles. If we consider only the protein-coding genes, this would mean 1,340 heterozygous loci overall. Thus, any single human could produce a vast number of different possible sperm or egg cells 2^1,340 or 2.4 × 10⁴⁰³. The number of atoms in the whole known universe is ‘only’ 10⁸⁰, extremely tiny by comparison. So there is no problem for creationists explaining that the original created kinds could each give rise to many different varieties. In fact, the original created kinds would have had much more heterozygosity than their modern, more specialized descendants. No wonder Ayala pointed out that most of the variation in populations arises from reshuffling of previously existing genes, not from mutations."
https://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-2-variation-and-natural-selection-versus-evolution

 

So basically:  Change in Allele Frequency.

 

regards

[one.opinion]

14 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

"All (sexually reproducing) organisms contain their genetic information in paired form. Each offspring inherits half its genetic information from its mother, and half from its father. So there are two genes at a given position (locus, plural loci) coding for a particular characteristic. An organism can be heterozygous at a given locus, meaning it carries different forms (alleles) of this gene. For example, one allele can code for blue eyes, while the other one can code for brown eyes; or one can code for the A blood type and the other for the B type. Sometimes two alleles have a combined effect, while at other times only one allele (called dominant) has any effect on the organism, while the other does not (recessive). With humans, both the mother’s and father’s halves have 20,687 protein-coding genes, while 97% of the rest of the DNA has an important role in coding for RNA, for control of gene expression. Overall, the information equivalent to a thousand 500-page books (3 billion base pairs, as Teaching about Evolution correctly states on page 42). The ardent neo-Darwinist Francisco Ayala points out that humans today have an ‘average heterozygosity of 6.7 percent.’¹  This means that for every thousand gene pairs coding for any trait, 67 of the pairs have different alleles. If we consider only the protein-coding genes, this would mean 1,340 heterozygous loci overall. Thus, any single human could produce a vast number of different possible sperm or egg cells 2^1,340 or 2.4 × 10⁴⁰³. The number of atoms in the whole known universe is ‘only’ 10⁸⁰, extremely tiny by comparison. So there is no problem for creationists explaining that the original created kinds could each give rise to many different varieties. In fact, the original created kinds would have had much more heterozygosity than their modern, more specialized descendants. No wonder Ayala pointed out that most of the variation in populations arises from reshuffling of previously existing genes, not from mutations."

Thanks for the copy/paste, you are certainly under no obligation to provide explanations, but it would seem a little odd to participate in a conversation without doing so.

What your paste has presented here is the potential for "change over time". Of course this variation is not limited to humans, but can be applied to the animals I am interested in discussing. But there is still a problem for the increase in species numbers on the scale that would have had to have taken place in the last 4,000 years. Your paste gives the potential for the genetic variability required for speciation, but does not address the speciation itself. Evidence of such rapid speciation is just plain lacking.

[Enoch2021]

Just now, one.opinion said:

Thanks for the copy/paste

Copy and Paste, eh?  Can you share the rationale of What on Earth does Copy and Paste have to do with the Veracity of the Message? Would it be better if I typed it out?
Define Non-Sequitur (Fallacy)..?

What if a Professor wrote up a lesson plan, then wrote on the board: "Protein Secondary Structure is crucial for functionality and is conferred by Functional Sequence Complexity (Primary Structure), and Hydrogen Bonding". 
Then later that evening, decided to email the class the exact same text...but didn't feel like writing it out again....so merely "Copy and Pasted" from the lesson plan to the email.
Is the message in the email now COMPROMISED..because it was Copy and Pasted??
You wouldn't happen to be Pre-Law by chance?
Would the students dismiss it out of hand due to lack of credibility? 
I understand though, you have no coherent SUPPORT for any position, so you're reduced to feebly conjuring inane improprieties, right? 

This is Tantamount to saying: Your Case is Refuted because you: wrote it in German, submitted it on Legal Paper (wrong Stationary), used 'Word Pad" instead of "Microsoft Word", it's in Blue Ink rather than Black, used the wrong Font, Folded it, Stapled it, ad nauseam. 

 

Are you saying that it somehow takes away, diminishes the veracity, or just generally inappropriate to Support my Claims with Cited References?  

 

Quote

you are certainly under no obligation to provide explanations, but it would seem a little odd to participate in a conversation without doing so.

It seems odd to you that I don't have an extrapolated explanation for a Vaguely Ambiguous Abject Conjectured Speculation Begging The Question Fallacy Premise?

 

Quote

What your paste has presented here is the potential for "change over time".

See 'Copy-Paste' Trainwreck appeal above.

'Potential' for "change over time"?? It's a tad bit more than potential, It's Indubitable (See Laws of Entropy, 2LOT) 

 

Quote

But there is still a problem for the increase in species numbers on the scale that would have had to have taken place in the last 4,000 years.

How many times do I have to explicitly Explain and Illustrate to you that "SPECIES" is a Begging The Question Fallacy from the Black Lagoon?

 

Quote

Your paste gives the potential for the genetic variability required for speciation, but does not address the speciation itself. Evidence of such rapid speciation is just plain lacking.

 

regards

[one.opinion]

43 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

Copy and Paste, eh?  Can you share the rationale of What on Earth does Copy and Paste have to do with the Veracity of the Message? Would it be better if I typed it out?
Define Non-Sequitur (Fallacy)..?

What if a Professor wrote up a lesson plan, then wrote on the board: "Protein Secondary Structure is crucial for functionality and is conferred by Functional Sequence Complexity (Primary Structure), and Hydrogen Bonding". 
Then later that evening, decided to email the class the exact same text...but didn't feel like writing it out again....so merely "Copy and Pasted" from the lesson plan to the email.
Is the message in the email now COMPROMISED..because it was Copy and Pasted??
You wouldn't happen to be Pre-Law by chance?
Would the students dismiss it out of hand due to lack of credibility? 
I understand though, you have no coherent SUPPORT for any position, so you're reduced to feebly conjuring inane improprieties, right? 

This is Tantamount to saying: Your Case is Refuted because you: wrote it in German, submitted it on Legal Paper (wrong Stationary), used 'Word Pad" instead of "Microsoft Word", it's in Blue Ink rather than Black, used the wrong Font, Folded it, Stapled it, ad nauseam. 

 

Are you saying that it somehow takes away, diminishes the veracity, or just generally inappropriate to Support my Claims with Cited References? 

You are assuming criticism when there is none intended. I genuinely appreciated your contribution, but I couldn't exactly say with accuracy "thanks for your comments", could I?

45 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

How many times do I have to explicitly Explain and Illustrate to you that "SPECIES" is a Begging The Question Fallacy from the Black Lagoon?

You and I both know that there is indeed a standard definition of species that deals with reproductive compatibility, that sometimes doesn't perfectly explain observations. The imperfections in this definition do not prevent the concept of species from being valid or useful. You are ignoring the argument and focusing on items to nit-pick.

[one.opinion]

50 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

'Potential' for "change over time"?? It's a tad bit more than potential, It's Indubitable (See Laws of Entropy, 2LOT) 

I should have said "heritable change over time", but the only reason I didn't say "evolution" is because it tends to generate a rather vociferous response.

[Enoch2021]

54 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

You are assuming criticism when there is none intended.

Then why did you explicitly mention it 3 TIMES? 

 

Quote

I genuinely appreciated your contribution, but I couldn't exactly say with accuracy "thanks for your comments", could I?

Yea you should if the response was legitimate; otherwise, your intellectual honesty and commitment to 'a priori' adherence's in the face of Prima Facie contrary evidence come into question.

Appreciate you admitting to it 

 

Quote

 The imperfections in this definition do not prevent the concept of species from being valid or useful. You are ignoring the argument and focusing on items to nit-pick.

AGAIN, it's a Begging The Question Fallacy from the Black Lagoon and a Rubber Ruler... as explicitly explained and illustrated, repeatedly.

 

Quote

I should have said "heritable change over time"

Yes, it's called:  Change in Allele Frequency. 

 

Quote

the only reason I didn't say "evolution" is because it tends to generate a rather vociferous response.

It's not vociferous, it's called a simple request for the SUBSTANTIATION of Scientific Claims...

a.  Post the Scientific Theory of evolution...? 
b.  Post just TWO Formal Scientific Hypotheses then Experiments that concretized it into a REAL Scientific Theory...?
c.  Post the Null Hypotheses that were Rejected/Falsified for each...?
d.  Highlight The Independent Variables used in Each TEST...?

Ya see this ^^^^^, this is "SCIENCE"!

Now... you have been confronted with this Numerous Times and have WHOLESALE DODGED it each time.  

If you fail to provide this basic pedigree information, every appeal to 'evolution' is a... Fairytale "Just So" Story.  K?

 

So in conclusion, your entire argument "Dish" is a Main Course Fairytale ('evolution')...decorated with a Begging The Question Fallacy from the Black Lagoon Rubber Ruler ('Species') Garnish.

  

regards

[SavedOnebyGrace]

On ‎9‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 2:30 PM, one.opinion said:

I was actually looking for something else today, but ran across an article stating that a global flood approximately 4,000 years ago would require "evolution on steroids." The idea is that a very limited number of animals on the Ark would have had to evolved into a huge number in a very small (relatively) time period. John Woodmarappe wrote a book called "Noah's Ark: a Feasibility Study". All cards on the table, I have not read the book, but Woodmarappe estimates that 16,000 animals were on board (I don't know his estimates about plants). Recent estimates on numbers of animal species are somewhere from about 1,0000,000 to 1,500,000. So in the last 4,000 years, somewhere around sixteen thousand animals would have had to evolve into at least one million. This math would suggest that if the evolution rate was continuous, a new animal species would have to evolve every 1-2 days.

What do you all think?

This is one of the many reasons the Theory of Evolution is faulty science, has always been faulty science no matter how many times it is propped up, and will continue to be faulty science until Jesus returns.