Noah's Flood and Evolution (on steroids)

[Guest shiloh357]

24 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

I started just a tiny bit of research, and according to creation.com (https://creation.com/nephesh-chayyah), "nephesh chayyah" is used in Genesis 1:21 to refer to creatures that swarm in the water (including fish) and again in Genesis 1:24 to refer to creatures of the earth (which includes livestock, creeping things, and beasts of the earth as subsets). It's ambiguous what "creeping things" would be, but it sure seems like insects would qualify there. Like many other Hebrew phrases, it seems as though "nephesh chayyah" is pretty flexible in its usage. I think it would be difficult to determine exactly what would and would not be on the ark based on this term.

The Bible is pretty clear about what was on the ark. They would have probably been on the animals that went into the ark.  Insects might have already been in the ark while it was being built.   It did take 120 years to build the ark, after all.  What difference does it make if insects were or were not on the ark?

[one.opinion]

43 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Yeah, but you're basing that on one guy's opinion of what he thinks must have happened and despite what he thinks, speciation doesn't equal Evolution

A Young Earth Creationist wrote the book and it was used by Jonathan Sarfati. He made no claims of evolution. My point is that a global flood would require sustained evolution (call it "hyper phenotype and species development" if you want) to develop from a relatively small number of animal species to the much larger number of species observed today.

Insects are relevant because the number of species that would have to develop would vary greatly depending on whether or not they were largely wiped out by a global flood. I don't think there is sufficient Biblical evidence to hypothesize that most insect species would survive a global flood. Either way, hyper-speciation would be forced to occur at rates never observed on a large scale before.

[Tristen]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

I started just a tiny bit of research, and according to creation.com (https://creation.com/nephesh-chayyah), "nephesh chayyah" is used in Genesis 1:21 to refer to creatures that swarm in the water (including fish) and again in Genesis 1:24 to refer to creatures of the earth (which includes livestock, creeping things, and beasts of the earth as subsets). It's ambiguous what "creeping things" would be, but it sure seems like insects would qualify there. Like many other Hebrew phrases, it seems as though "nephesh chayyah" is pretty flexible in its usage. I think it would be difficult to determine exactly what would and would not be on the ark based on this term.

Hi One,

“"nephesh chayyah" is used in Genesis 1:21 to refer to creatures that swarm in the water (including fish) and again in Genesis 1:24 to refer to creatures of the earth (which includes livestock, creeping things, and beasts of the earth as subsets). It's ambiguous what "creeping things" would be, but it sure seems like insects would qualify there. Like many other Hebrew phrases, it seems as though "nephesh chayyah" is pretty flexible in its usage”

Right - so "creeping things" is "ambiguous", and may include insects, if interpreted without any other context. However, when the "creeping things" gathered to the ark are also described as land-dwelling, breathing animals with blood (i.e. nephesh), the context provides additional information to narrow the definition. Therefore, "creeping things" more likely refers to small mammals, reptiles and amphibians.

Fish were not explicitly gathered to the ark (for fairly obvious reasons). Generally, fish are not considered land-dwelling, breathing creatures - but they do have blood, and therefore qualify as nephesh.

 

"I think it would be difficult to determine exactly what would and would not be on the ark based on this term"

But the Bible doesn't use "this term" in isolation. There is other information given which has to be considered along with “this term”. The bible provides no list of "exactly what would and would not be on the ark". We have to formulate arguments around the available evidence.

 

But it is again important to point out that; 1) two of every kind of insect would not take up much room on the ark – even with the estimated extant numbers of insect species, and 2) your ‘required evolution rate’ argument in the original post is only valid if the Feasibility Study you cited included insects in their estimations.

 

In an earlier post on this thread you said, “For years, Young Earth Creationists have used arguments like "dogs are still dogs after thousands of years" as evidence that speciation does NOT occur.”

This is overly simplistic and misrepresentative. Speciation through Natural Selection has never been a problem for creationism.

Many presume that the species concept is nailed down, but all classification systems are subjective and fluid – meaning that we decide which factors are important for classifying groups together. Modern biology has adopted the Linnaean system (originally based on morphological similarities). But that has proven to be too simplistic – as demonstrated by the abundance of sub and super categories added at all levels (as well as the addition of the entire domain level). The concept of species remains highly debatable in certain scientific circles.

“Darwin (1859) believed that species were arbitrary constructs of the taxonomist for convenience, while Mayr believed that species were real entities (Mayr, 1996). Levin (1979) championed the view that species are the empirical units of evolution and ecology, while evolutionary species concept supporters argued that if monophyletic groups are real then so are species (Wiley and Mayden, 2000b). Other interpretations span the range between arbitrary constructs and representing real natural entities. Furthermore, it seems as if every taxonomist is trying to find that one perfect species concept that works for all scenarios and types of organisms (Hey, 2001; Hey, 2006; Wheeler and Meier, 2000).

Several authors have advocated for pluralism, or the use of multiple species concepts (Mayden, 1997; Mayden, 1999). Different situations or questions may call for using different species concepts. Hey (2006) cautions against this though, stating it doesn’t help to settle anything regarding the species debate. Fitzhugh (2006) treads close to a pluralistic view species in his advocacy for a "requirement of total evidence" approach to systematics. This requirement suggests that any evidence relevant to the species question needs to be considered. Total evidence could include morphological character information, genetic characters, behavioral traits and more.”

(https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/evo-eco-lab/species-concepts/ )

 

“The problem  is  that  currently  different  subgroups  of  biologists  advocate  different  and  at  least  partially  incompatible species concepts (reviewed by Mayden, 1997; de Queiroz, 1998; Harrison, 1998). Mayden (1997) listed 24 different  named  species  concepts,  and  there  are  even more  alternative  definitions  …  Many  of  these concepts  and  their  associated  definitions  are  incompatible  in  that  they  can  lead  to  different  conclusions concerning the boundaries and numbers of species.”

(http://pemarf.wdfiles.com/local--files/seminarios/Queiroz-%202007_Species%20Concepts%20and%20Species%20Delimitation.pdf )

 

So the term species (and ergo species numbers and speciation events) is highly reliant upon which subjective definition of species we decide to adopt. Since species is a fluid concept, implying conclusions based on a single species definition is a weak argument. Biblical creationism has no necessary antagonism with the concepts of species or speciation, so long as we understand that their meaning is limited by context.

 

 

“But not only does the Young Earth Creation model require speciation, it requires very RAPID speciation. Even in the most conservative estimates, speciation would have to occur at a remarkable rate across the entire animal kingdom. Yes, we do see interesting examples of speciation occurring over decades, but nothing coming close to the rate of speciation that would have to take place with a global flood model”

 

Based on what? If there were 16,000 kinds of land-dwelling, breathing animals on the ark (as your reference claims), and there are now roughly 70,000 extant modern species, that’s an average of 4-5 speciation events per kind. As animals spread across a post-flood world, they would be commonly moving into new habitats and adapting (through Natural Selection) to those new habitats. So speciation would have been more rapid until niches were filled and balance attained in each habitat. Furthermore, rapid early speciation would be more likely to occur in parallel due to limited local resources and continued expansion into an empty world.

 

Speciation by Natural Selection can occur in a single generation – because it doesn’t require the generation of any novel genetic information, but merely filters out genetic information which would make those carrying that information less fit to the environment.

 

 

 

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

So the term species (and ergo species numbers and speciation events) is highly reliant upon which subjective definition of species we decide to adopt.

A great majority of biologists would agree that the most useful definition of species would be a group of reproductively compatible individuals. Of course, there are cases in which this doesn't apply perfectly, like asexually reproducing organisms. But for animals, there is largely a physical basis for "species", unlike other taxonomic levels. With animals, the term is not as fluid as you suggest.

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

that’s an average of 4-5 speciation events per kind

How do you define kind? What is the evidence to support this definition?

 

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

So speciation would have been more rapid until niches were filled and balance attained in each habitat. Furthermore, rapid early speciation would be more likely to occur in parallel due to limited local resources and continued expansion into an empty world.

This is a very good point, but if a kind barrier exists, it would likely impede the filling of available niches.

[Guest shiloh357]

6 hours ago, one.opinion said:

A Young Earth Creationist wrote the book and it was used by Jonathan Sarfati. He made no claims of evolution. My point is that a global flood would require sustained evolution (call it "hyper phenotype and species development" if you want) to develop from a relatively small number of animal species to the much larger number of species observed today.

Insects are relevant because the number of species that would have to develop would vary greatly depending on whether or not they were largely wiped out by a global flood. I don't think there is sufficient Biblical evidence to hypothesize that most insect species would survive a global flood. Either way, hyper-speciation would be forced to occur at rates never observed on a large scale before.

I see.  My mistake.   Who is then responsible for arguing that such rapid speciation requires "evolution on steroids?"

[one.opinion]

6 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

I see.  My mistake.   Who is then responsible for arguing that such rapid speciation requires "evolution on steroids?"

It was from a Patheos blog.

Edit -- I did a bit of my own research to come up with numbers. Here is the article from Sarfati that uses some of Woodmorappe's work.

http://thecreationclub.com/how-did-all-the-animals-fit-on-noahs-ark-jonathan-sarfati/

Edited October 1, 2017 by one.opinion

[Tristen]

20 hours ago, one.opinion said:

A great majority of biologists would agree that the most useful definition of species would be a group of reproductively compatible individuals. Of course, there are cases in which this doesn't apply perfectly, like asexually reproducing organisms. But for animals, there is largely a physical basis for "species", unlike other taxonomic levels. With animals, the term is not as fluid as you suggest.

How do you define kind? What is the evidence to support this definition?

This is a very good point, but if a kind barrier exists, it would likely impede the filling of available niches.

“A great majority of biologists would agree that the most useful definition of species would be a group of reproductively compatible individuals. Of course, there are cases in which this doesn't apply perfectly, like asexually reproducing organisms. But for animals, there is largely a physical basis for "species", unlike other taxonomic levels. With animals, the term is not as fluid as you suggest.”

After all our conversations, are you really going to start your comment with appeals to Consensus/Authority?

You provide a nice, simplistic definition - that would almost be “useful” in a first year biology course. In such a context, I’d personally add that the offspring have to be reproductively viable. But this definition still doesn’t come close to reflecting the biological reality.

What does being “reproductively compatible” even mean? Is it physical/morphological compatibility, or molecular compatibility? If physical compatibility, do they actually have to interbreed in nature, or is theoretical compatibility enough. If molecular, where is the cut-off? Is it good enough to be genetically compatible enough to conceive a zygote, or does the offspring have to come to term, or does the offspring have to be viable beyond birth, or does the offspring itself have to be reproductively viable itself? Do these have to occur in nature, or is artificial proof-of-concept enough? And is the standard a) the potential for genetic hybridization, or b) just similarities in molecular markers? What about separate species that hybridize with each other – producing viable offspring? They are “reproductively compatible”, but explicitly separate species. What about populations that exist across morphological clines – where the extremes of the clines can’t interbreed, but those along the clines do? What about sub-groups within species that aren’t “reproductively compatible” with each other? There are so many complex biological factors that can’t be accounted for by such a simplistic definition.

The species concept (not the “term”) in biological reality is therefore highly fluid. I generally agree with your provided definition, but it would only ever be “useful” as a very general introduction to the species concept.

 

“How do you define kind?”

As I stated previously, all classification systems are subjective, and dependent upon context. The word “kind” is used by the Bible to define the creatures originally created by God, and later also used to describe the pairs of creatures represented on the ark. They are the ancestors from which all extant species have descended.

 

“What is the evidence to support this definition?”

Regardless of which model you prefer, we all have the same facts. The main facts contributing to this understanding are the stark, large genetic gaps between disparate groupings of animals, but broad genetic compatibility within similar groups (often compatible enough to hybridize with each other). Secularists interpret these gaps as indicating more distant relatedness, but I interpret the gaps between groups as reflecting the separation between created kinds, and compatibilities within groups as reflecting common descent from the original created kinds.

 

“if a kind barrier exists, it would likely impede the filling of available niches”

It may slow down the initial filling of niches, but all that means is that ecosystems would be more chaotic until achieving some degree of equilibrium – which would, in the meantime, promote more rapid speciation and adaptation through more intense environmental pressures.

[one.opinion]

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

After all our conversations, are you really going to start your comment with appeals to Consensus/Authority?

Do you mean "Are you going to start a comment pointing out that experts in a field predominantly accept a view"? If so, then the answer is yes. Tristen, you and I have discussed enough for me to trust that your scientific opinion is well-considered and supported your interpretation of evidence, and not conjecture. For this reason, I urge you to really think about your position on this argument. When experts who have spent decades studying a particular field share an opinion in that field, it is considerably different from asking 100 random people at the local mall what they think about that issue.

I made the mistake of initially mistrusting your scientific opinions because of your refusal to admit that when experts in ANY field come to a consensus, it means something. If you were to tell me "the majority of Patristic theologians supported a young earth creation model" and I simply dismissed it as "appeal to Consensus/Authority fallacy", that wouldn't make much sense, would it?

[Tristen]

5 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Do you mean "Are you going to start a comment pointing out that experts in a field predominantly accept a view"? If so, then the answer is yes. Tristen, you and I have discussed enough for me to trust that your scientific opinion is well-considered and supported your interpretation of evidence, and not conjecture. For this reason, I urge you to really think about your position on this argument. When experts who have spent decades studying a particular field share an opinion in that field, it is considerably different from asking 100 random people at the local mall what they think about that issue.

I made the mistake of initially mistrusting your scientific opinions because of your refusal to admit that when experts in ANY field come to a consensus, it means something. If you were to tell me "the majority of Patristic theologians supported a young earth creation model" and I simply dismissed it as "appeal to Consensus/Authority fallacy", that wouldn't make much sense, would it?

“I urge you to really think about your position on this argument. When experts who have spent decades studying a particular field share an opinion in that field, it is considerably different from asking 100 random people at the local mall what they think about that issue.”

I have thought this position through thoroughly. They are matters of simple logic.

Appeals to consensus/majority are technical fallacies, and therefore meaningless arguments, because the majority (or even everyone) can be wrong.

Appeals to Authority/Expertise are technical fallacies, and therefore meaningless arguments, because, regardless of their credentials or how long they took to gain their expertise, experts can be biased, or can be wrong, or can exaggerate, or can lie etc.

Combining these fallacies adds exactly no meaning to an argument. The only thing contributing meaning to a position is rational support (i.e. argument and evidence).

 

Fallacies are intellectual traps. What you are telling me when you present such fallacies is to stop thinking for myself; i.e. don’t worry my pretty little head regarding the pesky details over arguments or evidence – the experts have all that covered, and they’ll be sure and let me know what I should believe.

 

If anything, appeals to expertise are more relevant to science than any other field – since science advocates critical/skeptical reasoning. Uncritical trust in someone based on their credentials alone is not only fallacious, but the opposite of scientific reasoning.

 

“I made the mistake of initially mistrusting your scientific opinions because of your refusal to admit that when experts in ANY field come to a consensus, it means something.”

It’s occurred to me that you may be conflating issues – which could be causing confusion. The reasons that scientists come to their opinions may be meaningful. But for you to simply tell me they have come to consensus, contributes absolutely nothing of intellectual substance whatsoever to our conversation. There is nothing in such a claim for me to rationally consider.

 

“If you were to tell me "the majority of Patristic theologians supported a young earth creation model" and I simply dismissed it as "appeal to Consensus/Authority fallacy", that wouldn't make much sense, would it?”

If I was to suggest that you should adopt young-earth creationism because the majority of church fathers were young-earth creationists, you should absolutely dismiss my argument as fallacious.

 

But I haven’t used that information to make that argument. I have used the fact that Genesis was overwhelmingly interpreted as history before the existence of the secular models – to evidence my opinion that exposure to secular models effects undue influence over how old-earth creationists approach Genesis (as opposed to the claim of coming to an old-earth conclusion from an objective reading of Genesis – i.e. independent of any influence from secular models).

 

[Guest shiloh357]

8 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Do you mean "Are you going to start a comment pointing out that experts in a field predominantly accept a view"? If so, then the answer is yes.

When did science become a democracy?