Noahs ark and the food chain

9-10ths_Penguin said:

Wait... so you're telling us that dogs and cats evolved from a common ancestor no more than 6,000 years ago? Same for all living bear species? Same for deer and horses?

You do realize that deer and horses aren't even in the same taxonomic order, right? Deer are Artiodactyla (even-toed ungulates), while horses are Perissodactyla (odd-toed ungulates). Evolutionarily speaking, horses are closer to rhinoceroses than they are to deer, and deer are closer to warthogs and hippos than they are to horses.

Click to expand...

No part of the Noah's Ark story really adds up.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

Wait... so you're telling us that dogs and cats evolved from a common ancestor no more than 6,000 years ago? Same for all living bear species? Same for deer and horses?

You do realize that deer and horses aren't even in the same taxonomic order, right? Deer are Artiodactyla (even-toed ungulates), while horses are Perissodactyla (odd-toed ungulates). Evolutionarily speaking, horses are closer to rhinoceroses than they are to deer, and deer are closer to warthogs and hippos than they are to horses.

Click to expand...

Animals reproduce after their own kind, that is what we observe. However there is variation within those kinds and if you want to call that evolution fine, I will call it micro-evolution. But it really is natural selection, not mutations and natural selection. It is the natural selection of the genes needed to survive and flouish in the world in which God made and put into the genes of each kind during creation week.

Man of Faith said:

Animals reproduce after their own kind, that is what we observe.

Click to expand...

Exactly when have we observed an odd-toed ungulate evolve into an even-toed ungulate (or vice versa) within 6,000 years?

Man of Faith said:

However there is variation within those kinds and if you want to call that evolution fine, I will call it micro-evolution.

Click to expand...

But wait one minute: Genesis 1:24 tells us that livestock are comprised of one set of "kinds" and that wild animals are comprised of another set of "kinds". IOW (for large mammals, at least), a "kind" is not so large that it includes both domesticated species and wild species.

In defining horses and deer as being the same "kind", you've extended the term "kind" so far that all ungulates are a "kind".

How can Genesis 1:24 still be true, then? If domestic cattle and wild buffalo are a different "kind", then horses and deer can't be the same "kind"... but Genesis 1 says that livestock and wild animals are of separate "kinds".

In order to defend a literal interpretation of Genesis 6-7, it seems you've contradicted Genesis 1.

And BTW: if you accept evolution to the point that you accept the idea of separate orders of species evolving from a common ancestor, then you accept evolution, period. At that point, any "macro/micro" distinction is useless - you've officially put on the jersey and you're cheering for Darwin's team.

Man of Faith said:

But it really is natural selection, not mutations and natural selection. It is the natural selection of the genes needed to survive and flouish in the world in which God made and put into the genes of each kind during creation week.

Click to expand...

Any sort of evolution, including so-called "micro-evolution", involves mutation.

Man of Faith said:

Animals reproduce after their own kind, that is what we observe. However there is variation within those kinds and if you want to call that evolution fine, I will call it micro-evolution. But it really is natural selection, not mutations and natural selection. It is the natural selection of the genes needed to survive and flouish in the world in which God made and put into the genes of each kind during creation week.

Click to expand...

Micro-evolution is still evolution. Do you believe that humans and primates also have a common ancestor?

I.S.L.A.M617 said:

Micro-evolution is still evolution. Do you believe that humans and primates also have a common ancestor?

Click to expand...

No, I don't believe in fairy tales.

Man of Faith said:

No, I don't believe in fairy tales.

Click to expand...

How come cats and dogs can evolve from a common ancestor but not humans and primates? Seems hypocritical.

I.S.L.A.M617 said:

How come cats and dogs can evolve from a common ancestor but not humans and primates? Seems hypocritical.

Click to expand...

Dogs evolved from a dog kind and cats evolved from a cat kind.

Man of Faith said:

Dogs evolved from a dog kind and cats evolved from a cat kind.

Click to expand...

Then why couldn't humans evolve from a primate kind? We do share common DNA with primates.

Man of Faith said:

Somebody misinformed? Genesis 6:16 "Leave an 18-inch opening below the roof all the way around the boat."

Click to expand...

LOL! Gee, 18 inches...

Ever been to the livestock barns at the fair? Ever been to an indoor dairy facility? They have open doors and 5-8 foot exhaust fans at either end of the roofs, and it still stinks like you wouldn't believe.

Multiply that by 10,000 and reduce the airflow to what can escape an 18 inch slit and......:help:

Man of Faith said:

Dogs evolved from a dog kind and cats evolved from a cat kind.

Click to expand...

Just thought of something: if the definition of a "kind" is so unclear that modern creationists can't say exactly where a "kind" starts or ends, exactly how did Noah know the definition of "kind" well enough to make sure the right number of each "kind" was placed on the Ark?

Edit: BTW - I'm still waiting on your explanation for why you decided to throw out Genesis 1 in your interpretation of the flood story.

Cat kind... dog kind... what "kind" am I?


What "kind" am I?


Or me?


Just what is a "kind"?

wa:do

Man of Faith said:

No, I don't believe in fairy tales.

Click to expand...

How is human evolution any harder to believe than a global flood and a party cruise with 2 of every animal?

Man of Faith said:

Animals reproduce after their own kind, that is what we observe. However there is variation within those kinds ...

Click to expand...

But you don’t observe that, you just think you observe that. If you can’t define “kind” you can’t tell us that you observe “kind”. You don’t even know what kind is, you have no idea what it means to say “reproduce after their own kind” because the word “kind” has no meaning. You are speaking gibberish but you don’t know it.

Man of Faith said:

It wasn't two of every animal, it was every family of animals or kind of animals. There were no dogs or cats on the ark, just their predecesors, the kind of animal that dogs and cats came from. There are many different bear species but only one pair of bear representatives were needed on the ark, same with deer and horses etc...

Click to expand...

Congratulations, you have just accepted evolution via common descent and at a rate unimaginably faster than science proposes.

Now try and explain what those species ate while on the ark (especially all the obligate carnivores) and what they ate after they left the ark (especially all the obligate carnivores).

I.S.L.A.M617 said:

Then why couldn't humans evolve from a primate kind? We do share common DNA with primates.

Click to expand...

Because only primates kinds evolve from primate kinds, just like only dog kinds evolve from dog kinds. We don't share common DNA, we share a common design.

Jose Fly said:

LOL! Gee, 18 inches...

Ever been to the livestock barns at the fair? Ever been to an indoor dairy facility? They have open doors and 5-8 foot exhaust fans at either end of the roofs, and it still stinks like you wouldn't believe.

Multiply that by 10,000 and reduce the airflow to what can escape an 18 inch slit and......:help:

Click to expand...

You get used to it.

bossbozz said:

Lets say, for arguments sake, that the flood did happen and Noah took 2 of each unclean animal and 14 of each clean animal aboard the ark for a year and somehow they all managed to miraculously survive until the water level dropped.

How then would these animals survive after the flood? Surely those that graze would have little to no vegetation left after the flood to graze upon and die? Even if they didn't die then there would still not be enough prey available for the carnivorous animals to survive. 14 lions would make short work of 14 gazelles (which usually rely on their large numbers to keep safe by lowering the probability of being caught)

An event like this would pretty much destroy the food chain.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Magic....it fixes everything.

Man of Faith said:

Because only primates kinds evolve from primate kinds, just like only dog kinds evolve from dog kinds. We don't share common DNA, we share a common design.

Click to expand...

Humans ARE primates.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

Just thought of something: if the definition of a "kind" is so unclear that modern creationists can't say exactly where a "kind" starts or ends, exactly how did Noah know the definition of "kind" well enough to make sure the right number of each "kind" was placed on the Ark?

Edit: BTW - I'm still waiting on your explanation for why you decided to throw out Genesis 1 in your interpretation of the flood story.

Click to expand...

Kind isn't that clear, that is why studies are being done by scientists to clear it up. However it has been compared to the family group in biological classifications. Noah didn't round up the animals, God sent them into the Ark. Noah just stood by and watched. I don't throw out any of the Bible.

Genesis 6:20 Pairs of every kind of bird, and every kind of animal, and every kind of small animal that scurries along the ground, will come to you to be kept alive.21 And be sure to take on board enough food for your family and for all the animals."

Sirktas said:

Humans ARE primates.

Click to expand...

No they are not.