Noah's Flood and Evolution (on steroids)

[one.opinion]

30 minutes ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

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.

I agree that this scenario is problematic, but this is proposed by Young Earth Creationists as a possible explanation for the abundance of animal species compared to what would have survived a global flood.

[one.opinion]

43 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

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

Ok good, starting to make some progress here. The Young Earth Creationists that propose this rapidly expanding balloon of speciation are perfectly fine with this aspect of evolution, after all, it is easily observed. But what they conclude is that this change in allele frequency over time must have increased thousands of animal species into hundreds of thousands, based on reproductive compatibility. Yes, I will continue to use the term "species", but you can call them "reproductively compatible groups" if that helps.

[Enoch2021]

2 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Ok good, starting to make some progress here.

I already posted this...  [Yes, it's called: Change in Allele Frequency], twice.

 

Quote

The Young Earth Creationists that propose this rapidly expanding balloon of speciation are perfectly fine with this aspect of evolution

This is getting well past ridiculous...

1.  Stereotype Fallacy (AGAIN!)
2.  Begging The Question Fallacy from the Black Lagoon (AGAIN!)
3.  evolution is a Fairytale!  (AGAIN!)...

What's that...??  Define evolution...?  

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...?

Your WHOLESALE DODGING of this over and over again is quite hilarious.

You just can't drop the 'Narrative' can ya? 

 

Quote

after all, it is easily observed.

I'd say there's a better chance of 'observing' Liberace being resurrected sporting a purple tutu and jumping on a chartreuse hobbled unicorn and riding around the Sombrero Galaxy.

 

Quote

But what they conclude is that this change in allele frequency over time must have increased thousands of animal species into hundreds of thousands, based on reproductive compatibility.

Do I need to post the Citation Again?

 

Quote

Yes, I will continue to use the term "species", but you can call them "reproductively compatible groups" if that helps.

No problem using the term "species" in it's context (The Arbitrary Classification System); However, the moment you try to weasel it out of that context for other purposes... it immediately becomes a Begging The Question Fallacy from the Black Lagoon Rubber Ruler.

 

regards

[one.opinion]

Just now, Enoch2021 said:

I already posted this...  [Yes, it's called: Change in Allele Frequency], twice.

Sorry, I have to sift through a lot of what you say to look for meaning. Case in point upcoming:

3 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

I'd say there's a better chance of 'observing' Liberace being resurrected sporting a purple tutu and jumping on a chartreuse hobbled unicorn and riding around the Sombrero Galaxy.

My "easily observed" comment was directly linked to changes in allele frequency. It really is possible to observe changes in allele frequency. You are so ready to discredit anything that I say that you resort to theatrics when I'm sure you would agree with what I actually wrote.

[Tristen]

Hi One,

Firstly, I’d like to deal with your numbers. The Bible tells us what kinds of animals were saved on the ark;

Genesis 7:21-22

21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died.

So land animals which breathe. Obviously, this excludes aquatic animals, but also insects (which make up the vast majority of your 1-1.5 million number). It is estimated that there are about 70,000 species in Chordata, about half of which are fish. So we are really looking at an “evolution” rate from 16,000 to 35,000 over the time period.

If by “evolve”, you mean speciation from a highly diverse gene pool by Natural Selection, then that kind of change can happen in a couple generations. It is easy to find papers touting “rapid evolution” referring to this type of change.

[one.opinion]

Hey Tristen,

13 minutes ago, Tristen said:

21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died.

 

So land animals which breathe. Obviously, this excludes aquatic animals, but also insects (which make up the vast majority of your 1-1.5 million number). It is estimated that there are about 70,000 species in Chordata, about half of which are fish. So we are really looking at an “evolution” rate from 16,000 to 35,000 over the time period.

I'm not being obstructionist here, but I'm having a little trouble following why you are excluding insects, and ignoring everything except Chordata.

[Enoch2021]

50 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Sorry, I have to sift through a lot of what you say to look for meaning. Case in point upcoming:

Why would you need to?  The Citation explained it as Change in Allele Frequency, I then summarized it as Change in Allele Frequency...then I said Change in Allele Frequency, for a Third Time in a follow on post.  You then say "we're finally getting somewhere", when...I already been there for decades sippin piña colada's.  So what are you talking about?

 

Quote

My "easily observed" comment was directly linked to changes in allele frequency.

Really??  Let's see after I "SIFT THROUGH" what you say ...

one.opinion:  "The Young Earth Creationists that propose this rapidly expanding balloon of speciation are perfectly fine with this aspect of evolution, after all, it is easily observed."

As we can clearly see, you Incoherently Shoehorned in that Fairytale 'evolution'!!   ... As in this "Aspect of evolution... is EASILY OBSERVED".

That dog doesn't hunt here!  Change in Allele Frequency DOES NOT (and Never Will) = Fairytale 'evolution'.

 

Quote

It really is possible to observe changes in allele frequency.

Yes, I know.  It doesn't help your case One Iota; in fact, it shoots it in the head. 

 

Quote

You are so ready to discredit anything that I say that you resort to theatrics when I'm sure you would agree with what I actually wrote.

Yes and Aphrodite was actually Elmer Fudd in drag and was directly responsible for the TET Offensive.

 

So how many times are you gonna WHOLESALE DODGE and 'Whistle Past The Graveyard' here...

'evolution' What's that...??  Define evolution...?  

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...?

You banking on me forgetting or something?   Fat Chance.

 

regards

[Tristen]

28 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Hey Tristen,

I'm not being obstructionist here, but I'm having a little trouble following why you are excluding insects, and ignoring everything except Chordata.

Insects don't technically breathe. Whilst I suspect that there were some insects stowed away, they aren't listed in the creatures that were explicitly saved on the ark (i.e. land-dwelling, breathing animals). Even if they were 2 of each kind of insect, they wouldn't take up much room (even if there were 1-2 million species). Furthermore, insects don't have blood, and so don't qualify as nephesh chayah (Hb) - the Biblical phrase for true, God-breathed, life. I haven't read the book either, but for these reasons, I suspect the author would have excluded insects from the Feasibility Study. So including them in your "evolution rate" scenario would be specious if they didn't contribute to the original 16,000 figure.

[one.opinion]

You are making my point for me, but that's ok, I guess. You have zero intention of listening to a word I say. Referring to "change in allele frequency", I say it is easily observed. One post your response is:

4 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

I'd say there's a better chance of 'observing' Liberace being resurrected sporting a purple tutu and jumping on a chartreuse hobbled unicorn and riding around the Sombrero Galaxy.

I respond with:

3 hours ago, one.opinion said:

It really is possible to observe changes in allele frequency.

And you somehow completely change your tune to:

 

2 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

Yes, I know.  It doesn't help your case One Iota; in fact, it shoots it in the head. 

You are so determined to refute everything I write that you refute yourself. I gave it a good shot, but you are just impossible to converse with when you set your mind to avoiding it.

[one.opinion]

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

Insects don't technically breathe.

Do you think that verse 22 is explicit enough to rule out any gas exchange that does not involved a diaphragm, lungs, and physical nostrils? Would it be plausible for spiracles to be considered nostrils? What about arachnid "book lungs"? And if insects were not included in the animal population of the ark, how would you explain their survival during a global flood?

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

Furthermore, insects don't have blood, and so don't qualify as nephesh chayah (Hb) - the Biblical phrase for true, God-breathed, life.

Ancient Hebrew is certainly not my strong suit, but how do you interpret "nephesh chayyah" as something that requires blood? I'm not attempting to refute it, I'm just asking for knowledge.