eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke) (04/15/85)
< I am an island > So often I have read words to the effect: "All you have is some fossils, and carbon radiometric dating ... ". Surprisingly, these comments typically receive very few rebuttals. In my last article, I mentioned the substantial independent biochemical evidence supporting evolution. This evidence is ubiquitous, and simple reproducible experiments repeatedly verify its existence. In this article, I shall briefly mention another major branch of independent evidence, geography. Although we cannot observe large-scale evolution in the laboratory, our planet has provided many "experiments" for us, in the form of isolated geographic regions (islands and lakes). These isolated regions always contain unique species, related to mainland life, but slightly modified. I wish I could eloquently expound on this topic, but I could never produce a better presentation than this week's "Life On Earth" TV episode (PBS network). If you missed it, watch for any rerunning thereof. How could new species appear in isolated regions if they didn't evolve? "Wait a minute!!" cries the creationist in desperation. After all, evolutionary evidence rears its ugly head yet again, we must bat it down, no matter how absurd the counterargument. "There is a simple explanation. Gawd created unique species everywhere, and those on the mainland mingled and mixed. When we got to the islands, we found some previously inaccessible species. A simple uniform distribution of created species answers everything." Long sigh of relief. I give a long sigh myself, but for other reasons. The islands were not there when animals first appeared. (I am not dealing with the "young earth" or "God is fooling our eyes" camps.) Furthermore, the diversity of unique island species is highly correlated with the island's time of isolation, and the number of niches on it. Why should Hawaii have 4/5 of the world's drosophila species? It doesn't contain 4/5 of the world's land area. Rather, it provided many different environments, and isolation (not many fly eaters). These short-generation animals quickly evolved into a dizzying number of species. Why were 90% of Hawaii's indigenous plants unique? Why are island animals (e.g. turtles) larger than their mainland counterparts? Why do birds become large and flightless on islands. Is flying expensive, and hard to justify without cats around, or did God just snap his/her fingers again. Why does evolution explain most of these phenomena. Why can creationism explain none of this, without resorting to coincidence, or continual divine intervention (unlikely). The "Life on Earth" series has given me valuable insight into the evolutionary process. More important, I am again reminded of the complexity and diversity of life on our planet. The beauty of a bird in flight necessarily captivates evolutionists and creationists alike. -- Karl Dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad
lonetto@phri.UUCP (Michael Lonetto) (04/19/85)
> < I am an island > > > So often I have read words to the effect: > "All you have is some fossils, and carbon radiometric dating ... ". > Surprisingly, these comments typically receive very few rebuttals. > In my last article, I mentioned the substantial independent > biochemical evidence supporting evolution. > This evidence is ubiquitous, and simple reproducible experiments > repeatedly verify its existence. > > I give a long sigh myself, but for other reasons. > The islands were not there when animals first appeared. > (I am not dealing with the "young earth" or "God is fooling our eyes" camps.) > Furthermore, the diversity of unique island species is highly correlated > with the island's time of isolation, and the number of niches on it. > Why should Hawaii have 4/5 of the world's drosophila species? > It doesn't contain 4/5 of the world's land area. > Rather, it provided many different environments, > and isolation (not many fly eaters). These short-generation animals quickly > evolved into a dizzying number of species. > Why were 90% of Hawaii's indigenous plants unique? > Why are island animals (e.g. turtles) larger than their mainland counterparts? > Why do birds become large and flightless on islands. > Is flying expensive, and hard to justify without cats around, > or did God just snap his/her fingers again. > Why does evolution explain most of these phenomena. > Why can creationism explain none of this, > without resorting to coincidence, or continual divine intervention (unlikely). > > Karl Dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** As a biochemist interested in evolution I have followed this net with some interest for the past several months. This is the first mention I have seen of what I consider the strongest evidence available (now) for the evolution of species by natural selection. The Hawaiin Drosophila that Karl mentions are closely related to each other and somewhat less closely related to other Drosophila species. The interesting point is that a mechanism now exists to explain rapid speciation in the genus Drosophila. I am not sure of my ability to present this to the net, but I will make an effort anyway.
gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) (04/19/85)
-- Karl Dahlke sums up the vision and the passion of a naturalist so eloquently that I can't bear to edit it (relax, it's only 20 lines, and savor): > I give a long sigh myself, but for other reasons. > The islands were not there when animals first appeared. > (I am not dealing with the "young earth" or "God is fooling our > eyes" camps.) Furthermore, the diversity of unique island species > is highly correlated with the island's time of isolation, and the > number of niches on it. > Why should Hawaii have 4/5 of the world's drosophila species? > It doesn't contain 4/5 of the world's land area. > Rather, it provided many different environments, > and isolation (not many fly eaters). These short-generation animals > quickly evolved into a dizzying number of species. > Why were 90% of Hawaii's indigenous plants unique? > Why are island animals (e.g. turtles) larger than their mainland > counterparts? > Why do birds become large and flightless on islands? > Is flying expensive, and hard to justify without cats around, > or did God just snap his/her fingers again. > Why does evolution explain most of these phenomena. > Why can creationism explain none of this, > without resorting to coincidence, or continual divine intervention > (unlikely). After he posted this, I thought "This was how it came to Darwin". You surround yourself in nature, and the patterns hit you over the head. And so I ask, are there any creationist naturalists? I suspect there are not, as few seem capable of seeing beyond the gilt edges of their bibles. And they are not alone in that myopia--many scientists can't see beyond their sacred tomes either. But those who can, they stand the world on its ear. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 19 Apr 85 [30 Germinal An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7188 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/20/85)
> [Karl Dahlke] > How could new species appear in isolated regions if they didn't evolve? > > "Wait a minute!!" cries the creationist in desperation. > After all, evolutionary evidence rears its ugly head yet again, we must > bat it down, no matter how absurd the counterargument. > "There is a simple explanation. Gawd created unique > species everywhere, and those on the mainland mingled and mixed. > When we got to the islands, we found some previously inaccessible species. > A simple uniform distribution of created species answers everything." > Long sigh of relief. Hang on a second. Have you ever actually seen this argument used? If so, where? If not...be quiet. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "Danger signs, a creeping independence" |
dimitrov@csd2.UUCP (Isaac Dimitrovsky) (04/20/85)
[] >>How could new species appear in isolated regions if they didn't evolve? . . . <the following is advanced by Karl as a creationist explanation> >> "There is a simple explanation. Gawd created unique >> species everywhere, and those on the mainland mingled and mixed. >> When we got to the islands, we found some previously inaccessible species. >> A simple uniform distribution of created species answers everything." > >Hang on a second. Have you ever actually seen this argument used? >If so, where? If not...be quiet. OK, Paul, just what is *your* explanation of this? I assume by your irritated reaction to the argument given above that you have a different one in mind. Isaac Dimitrovsky
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/22/85)
> [] > > >>How could new species appear in isolated regions if they didn't evolve? > . . . <the following is advanced by Karl as a creationist explanation> > > >> "There is a simple explanation. Gawd created unique > >> species everywhere, and those on the mainland mingled and mixed. > >> When we got to the islands, we found some previously inaccessible species. > >> A simple uniform distribution of created species answers everything." > > > >Hang on a second. Have you ever actually seen this argument used? > >If so, where? If not...be quiet. > > OK, Paul, just what is *your* explanation of this? > I assume by your irritated reaction to the argument given above that > you have a different one in mind. > > Isaac Dimitrovsky No, I don't. I meant what I said, viz. "what creationist actually uses this argument?" No acrimony implied. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "Danger signs, a creeping independence" |
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (04/23/85)
In article <393@ihu1m.UUCP> gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) writes: > -- > Karl Dahlke sums up the vision and the passion of a naturalist > so eloquently that I can't bear to edit it (relax, it's only 20 > lines, and savor): I quite agree, though I won't repost it. > After he posted this, I thought "This was how it came to Darwin". > You surround yourself in nature, and the patterns hit you over the > head. And so I ask, are there any creationist naturalists? I suspect > there are not, as few seem capable of seeing beyond the gilt edges > of their bibles. And they are not alone in that myopia--many scientists > can't see beyond their sacred tomes either. But those who can, they > stand the world on its ear. Yes, there are (and have been) numerous creationist naturalists, as has been pointed out in other notes. They can perceive the patterns also, though modern ones seldom look for patterns on as grand a scale as Darwin did. (For example, there are large numbers of creationist birdwatchers, and some creationist taxonomic specialists.) And their work can be useful where the patterns prove widespread and consistant. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (04/25/85)
> > >>How could new species appear in isolated regions if they didn't evolve? > > . . . <the following is advanced by Karl as a creationist explanation> > > > > >> "There is a simple explanation. Gawd created unique > > >> species everywhere, and those on the mainland mingled and mixed. > > >> When we got to the islands,we found some previously inaccessible species. > > >> A simple uniform distribution of created species answers everything." > > > > > >Hang on a second. Have you ever actually seen this argument used? > > >If so, where? If not...be quiet. > > > > OK, Paul, just what is *your* explanation of this? > > I assume by your irritated reaction to the argument given above that > > you have a different one in mind. > > Isaac Dimitrovsky > > No, I don't. I meant what I said, viz. "what creationist actually > uses this argument?" No acrimony implied. > Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- So should we just add this one to the list of phenomena which is easily explained by evolution and ignored by creationists? -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "This statement is true."
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/28/85)
>>>>>How could new species appear in isolated regions if they didn't evolve? >>> . . . <the following is advanced by Karl as a creationist explanation> >>> >>>>> "There is a simple explanation. Gawd created unique >>>>> species everywhere, and those on the mainland mingled and mixed. >>>>> When we got to the islands,we found some previously inaccessible species. >>>>> A simple uniform distribution of created species answers everything." >>>> [Paul DuBois] >>>>Hang on a second. Have you ever actually seen this argument used? >>>>If so, where? If not...be quiet. >>> [Isaac Dimitrovsky] >>> OK, Paul, just what is *your* explanation of this? >>> I assume by your irritated reaction to the argument given above that >>> you have a different one in mind. >> [Paul DuBois] >> No, I don't. I meant what I said, viz. "what creationist actually >> uses this argument?" No acrimony implied. > [Jeff Sonntag] > So should we just add this one to the list of phenomena which is easily > explained by evolution and ignored by creationists? Maybe. Or maybe someone could actually come up with the creationists who make this argument. Or maybe someone could just admit that it's a straw man, and quit circling around the question. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "There are two sides to every argument, until you take one." |
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/28/85)
> [K. A. Dahlke] > How could new species appear in isolated regions if they didn't evolve? > The islands were not there when animals first appeared. > (I am not dealing with the "young earth" or "God is fooling our eyes" camps.) > Furthermore, the diversity of unique island species is highly correlated > with the island's time of isolation, and the number of niches on it. > Why should Hawaii have 4/5 of the world's drosophila species? > It doesn't contain 4/5 of the world's land area. > Rather, it provided many different environments, > and isolation (not many fly eaters). These short-generation animals quickly > evolved into a dizzying number of species. > Why were 90% of Hawaii's indigenous plants unique? > Why are island animals (e.g. turtles) larger than their mainland counterparts? > Why do birds become large and flightless on islands. > Is flying expensive, and hard to justify without cats around, > or did God just snap his/her fingers again. > Why does evolution explain most of these phenomena. > Why can creationism explain none of this, > without resorting to coincidence, or continual divine intervention (unlikely). I understand how evolution explains most of these, but I have to ask about one: what is the explanation for larger animals on islands than on the mainland? > The "Life on Earth" series has given me valuable > insight into the evolutionary process. > More important, I am again reminded > of the complexity and diversity of life on our planet. > The beauty of a bird in flight necessarily > captivates evolutionists and creationists alike. Very true! -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "There are two sides to every argument, until you take one." |
rlh@cvl.UUCP (Ralph L. Hartley) (04/29/85)
>>>>>How could new species appear in isolated regions if they didn't evolve? ... >> So should we just add this one to the list of phenomena which is easily >> explained by evolution and ignored by creationists? > Maybe. Or maybe someone could actually come up with the creationists > who make this argument. Or maybe someone could just admit that it's > a straw man, and quit circling around the question. The original argument is FOR evolution. It is true that a straw man was raised as a posible creationist response, but if you don't want to use that argument what argument DO you want to use. The point is not that creatonist use that argument, but that they don't have a better one (or if they do, they are keeping it secret :-). Ralph Hartley rlh@cvl
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (04/29/85)
In article <995@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: > I understand how evolution explains most of these, but I have to ask > about one: what is the explanation for larger animals on islands > than on the mainland? Predation is an important selective pressure. If larger animals tend to be preyed upon more successfully (because they are easier to spot, can't burrow as well, or whatever), there will be selection to keep a species small, despite contrary pressures (such as larger animals being able to defend territories more effectively.) Move the animal to an island where there are no predators for the animal, and selection for larger size can act freely. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (04/30/85)
> >>>>>How could new species appear in isolated regions if they didn't evolve? > >>> . . . <the following is advanced by Karl as a creationist explanation> > >>> > >>>>> "There is a simple explanation. Gawd created unique > >>>>> species everywhere, and those on the mainland mingled and mixed. > >>>>> When we got to the islands,we found some previously inaccessible species. > >>>>> A simple uniform distribution of created species answers everything." > > >>>> [Paul DuBois] > >>>>Hang on a second. Have you ever actually seen this argument used? > >>>>If so, where? If not...be quiet. > > >>> [Isaac Dimitrovsky] > >>> OK, Paul, just what is *your* explanation of this? > >>> I assume by your irritated reaction to the argument given above that > >>> you have a different one in mind. > > >> [Paul DuBois] > >> No, I don't. I meant what I said, viz. "what creationist actually > >> uses this argument?" No acrimony implied. > > > [Jeff Sonntag] > > So should we just add this one to the list of phenomena which is easily > > explained by evolution and ignored by creationists? > > Maybe. Or maybe someone could actually come up with the creationists > who make this argument. Or maybe someone could just admit that it's > a straw man, and quit circling around the question. > You're the only one who has been circling around the question, Paul. We really don't care if any creationist ever made an argument similar to the one above. We've just been trying to get you (or some creationist) to answer the question. Is that so much to ask? In case you've forgotten what the question was (though that doesn't seem likely since you've gone to such great lengths to avoid answering it.), I'll attempt to reiterate it. This phenomena exists: Isolated habitats often support a large variety of species which are found nowhere else. There is a correlation between the number of unique species in an isolated habitat and the length of time that habit has been isolated. Obviously, this phenomena is easily explained with the use of evolution. Can creationists explain it? If so, how? No strawmen here, Paul. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "Did you ever wonder ... why you're supposed to drive on a parkway and park on a driveway?"
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (05/03/85)
In article <822@mhuxt.UUCP> js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) writes: >How could new species appear in isolated regions if they didn't evolve? > [Jeff Sonntag] > So should we just add this one to the list of phenomena which is easily > explained by evolution and ignored by creationists? > This phenomena exists: Isolated habitats often support a large >variety of species which are found nowhere else. There is a correlation >between the number of unique species in an isolated habitat and the length >of time that habit has been isolated. Obviously, this phenomena is >easily explained with the use of evolution. Can creationists explain it? >If so, how? No strawmen here, Paul. >-- >Jeff Sonntag This is really not a very big problem for creationists. Animals have been known to migrate over very long distances. "The Migration of Animals", L.H. Mathews. As a creationist who believes in catastrophist geology (The Flood), I would suggest that after leaving the Ark, many animals migrated into different parts of the world into places that were better suited for them to live. Or, many animals may have migrated because of an over abundance in one particular area. A. Franklin Schull, an evolutionist, makes this point in his book, "Evolution", on page 60. And in "Genes, Genesis, and Evolution", John W. Klotz, (an evolutionist), states concerning the fact that many marsupials and monotremes are found nowhere in the world except Austrailia, "It may be that these forms have become extinct in Asia and along tha Malay Peninsula. Possibly they were able to live in some of these areas for only a short time and travelled almost immediately to those places included in their present range." p. 226. Rachel L. Carson, "The Sea Around us" page 89, ...riding on the winds, drifting on the currents, or rafting in on logs, floating brush, or trees, the plants and animals...arive from the distant continents. Of course, these facts can not prove either creation or evolution, but let it be pointed out creation is not at odds or contrary to what we know to be true concerning the behaviour of animals and their habitats. Dan *********************************************************************** @There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact! Mark Twain
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (05/06/85)
> This is really not a very big problem for creationists. Animals have > been known to migrate over very long distances. "The Migration of Animals", > L.H. Mathews. > As a creationist who believes in catastrophist geology (The Flood), I would > suggest that after leaving the Ark, many animals migrated into different > parts of the world into places that were better suited for them > to live. I suppose that it's just coincidence that the animals that happened to migrate to islands are remarkably different that those that happened to migrate to continents? This is very typical of the quality of creationists "science" - no analysis, no attempt to explain phenomena - just a half-baked effort to reconcile reality with their own particular religious phantasy.
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (05/06/85)
> > So should we just add this one to the list of phenomena which is easily > > explained by evolution and ignored by creationists? > > This phenomena exists: Isolated habitats often support a large > >variety of species which are found nowhere else. There is a correlation > >between the number of unique species in an isolated habitat and the length > >of time that habit has been isolated. Obviously, this phenomena is > >easily explained with the use of evolution. Can creationists explain it? > >If so, how? No strawmen here, Paul. > >Jeff Sonntag > Dan Boskovitch writes: > This is really not a very big problem for creationists. Animals have > been known to migrate over very long distances. "The Migration of Animals", > L.H. Mathews. > As a creationist who believes in catastrophist geology (The Flood), I would > suggest that after leaving the Ark, many animals migrated into different > parts of the world into places that were better suited for them > to live. I see. And all of the species which are found in isolated habitats and nowhere else just got off the ark, traveled halfway around the world or so, directly to their isolated habitats (building boats if need be), leaving no offspring anywhere else, and established themselves where they were supposed to be. Sounds real likely to me. Since you've admitted to being a believer in the flood, I can't resist asking again: where did all of the water come from? Where did it go? A second and third act of special creation? -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "A plot to takeover CBS was pushed today by some narrow-minded, manip- ulative, right-wing, flaky conservatives who think their weirdo views aren't being handled fairly by our more liberal and intelligent news staff!"
eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke) (05/09/85)
> >How could new species appear in isolated regions if they didn't evolve? Dan's response: > This is really not a very big problem for creationists. Animals have > been known to migrate over very long distances. "The Migration of Animals", > L.H. Mathews. > As a creationist who believes in catastrophist geology (The Flood), I would > suggest that after leaving the Ark, many animals migrated into different > parts of the world into places that were better suited for them > to live. Or, many animals may have migrated because of an over abundance > in one particular area. I (and others) have been accused of presenting "strawman" creationist explanations for isolated speciation. Clearly, we do not fabricate these explanations. I ask you, what choice do we have (judging from the above)? At least Paul (and others) give *some* thought to their arguments before posting them to the net. Could someone more knowledgeable than I do me a favor, and compute a rough lower bound for the number of species that have lived in the last 10,000 years. Since species never evolve :-), they must have *all* been present on the ark. Including, of course, enough food for 40 days, isolation chambers so they don't eat each other, isles providing access to the animals, etc. 350 cubits just won't make it. Of course, Noah really should take 1,000 of each animal, to insure a sufficient gene pool for the success of each species. Oh but I keep forgetting, the animals have devolved, and they didn't have genetic imperfections 10,000 years ago :-). So we will give your "scientific" theory the benefit of the doubt, and allow two from each species. Would someone calculate how big the ship has to be to hold all the animals, and how long it would take to construct such a vessel, given the technology of the day? Of course I haven't mentioned the other problems: where did the water come from, where did it go, how did the animals reach their geographically distant isolated regions, did Noah take plants as well, how did he collect all the species, how can an animal travel half way around the world without leaving a trace or offspring, etc etc etc. This is almost as bad as the "speed of light is decreasing over time" argument presented at a recent creationist talk here at ATT-BL. It was an attempt to reconcile a young world with astronomical observations. I shall not even respond to the "evidence of design" garbage. Come on people, God won't send you to hell for using your brains. I know you have them, they pop up now and then. Please, give us something worth reading. If you don't like strawmen, try a different construction material. In defense of creationists, this message does not apply to all. Every field has its crackpots who unintentionally discredit possibly valid theories. My thanks to those of you who present rational arguments, and do not speak solely from religious mysticism. -- Karl Dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (05/10/85)
In article <830@mhuxt.UUCP> js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) writes: > I see. And all of the species which are found in isolated habitats and >nowhere else just got off the ark, traveled halfway around the world or so, >directly to their isolated habitats (building boats if need be), leaving no >offspring anywhere else, and established themselves where they were supposed >to be. Sounds real likely to me. Much more likely than the animals coming from an amoeba. More likely than all the right elements of the SOUP coming together at just the right time in just the right environment to form life. Please, don't be silly! Animals can't build boats! > Since you've admitted to being a believer in the flood, I can't resist >asking again: where did all of the water come from? Where did it go? A >second and third act of special creation? Don't have the time to go into it now. Look for a posting in the near future. Dan
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (05/11/85)
> Could someone more knowledgeable than I do me a favor, > and compute a rough lower bound for the number of species that have lived > in the last 10,000 years. Since species never evolve :-), > they must have *all* been present on the ark. Including, of course, > enough food for 40 days, isolation chambers so they don't eat each other, > isles providing access to the animals, etc. 350 cubits just won't make it. > Of course, Noah really should take 1,000 of each animal, to insure > a sufficient gene pool for the success of each species. > Oh but I keep forgetting, the animals have devolved, and they > didn't have genetic imperfections 10,000 years ago :-). > So we will give your "scientific" theory the benefit of the doubt, and allow > two from each species. Would someone calculate how > big the ship has to be to hold all the animals, > and how long it would take to construct such a vessel, given the technology > of the day? Of course I haven't mentioned the other problems: > where did the water come from, where did it go, how did the animals reach > their geographically distant isolated regions, did Noah take plants as well, > how did he collect all the species, how can an animal travel half way around > the world without leaving a trace or offspring, etc etc etc. > Which reminds me of another "Noah's Ark" question that I have never seen answered by Creationists. There are certain diseases, such as smallpox, that have no natural reservoirs, and which confer lifelong immunity upon those unfortunate enough to have contracted them once but fortunate enough to have survived. Would some Creationist care to tell us how smallpox itself survived the Flood? I remind everyone that the way smallpox has been wiped off the face of the Earth (except for artificially maintained samples in a few laboratories) was by finding every case and vaccinating everyone who was exposed to it. A similar principle would have applied in the Ark. The disease could not have survived in the small population consisting of Noah and his family. Everyone would have gotten it, and become immune. The virus would have had no hosts and would have died out. -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (beth d. christy) (05/12/85)
[keep :-)ing] >[From: dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich), Message-ID: <314@scgvaxd.UUCP>] > >In article <830@mhuxt.UUCP> js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) writes: >> I see. And all of the species which are found in isolated habitats and >>nowhere else just got off the ark, traveled halfway around the world or so, >>directly to their isolated habitats (building boats if need be), leaving no >>offspring anywhere else, and established themselves where they were supposed >>to be. Sounds real likely to me. > > Much more likely than the animals coming from an amoeba. More likely > than all the right elements of the SOUP coming together at just the > right time in just the right environment to form life. If you threw a hundred thousand dice and noted the combination that came up, then asked someone what is the likelihood of that particular combination arising in one throw of the dice, they'd probably dispense with the math and say simply, yet emphatically, "Not Very Likely". And they'd be quite right. But it's extremely likely (certain, in fact) that *some* (roughly) equally unlikely combination would arise. If you took an organic soup with a hundred billion "dice" in it and noted what particular arrangements of the "dice" formed, ... (you get the drift). The point is: in a dynamic environment *some* arrangement (for want of a less design-implying word) will show. And who's to say that the one that did show is the only one that would have resulted in life? It may (or may not) have been the only one that resulted in Life As We Know It. But it may well be the case that *most* of the combinations would've resulted in *some* kind of creature who, given enough time, could've looked back and said "HA. What's the 'likelihood' of life [as we know it] arising from SOUP?!" Then again, it may not. The point here is to remind you to be careful of "like- lihood", because it's not just likely, but *certain*, that *something* would have arisen. > Please, don't be silly! Animals can't build boats! How did animals who can neither swim nor build boats, like kangaroos, get from Mount Arrarat (sp?) to Australia (given, of course, that kangaroos didn't evolve from animals that *could* swim or build boats :-) )? -- --JB "The giant is awake."
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (05/12/85)
In article <314@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) writes: > Please, don't be silly! Animals can't build boats! Hmmm. Last time I checked, humans were animals. Sorry. I just couldn't resist... -- David Canzi It is the final proof of God's omnipotence that he need not exist in order to save us. Peter De Vries
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (05/16/85)
[.............]
I thought we might add a few questions for the 'Ark' theory:
1. What did the carnivores eat after leaving the ark?
2. For that matter, what did the vegetarians eat if plants were
preserved as seeds and hadn't grown to be edible yet?
3. Do you really expect anyone to believe (without any evidence)
that all the animals migrated to the different continents?
This implies that the penguins swam to the pole, kangaroos,
koalas, etc. swam to Australia. And, why are there no kangaroos
or many other Austrailian animals elsewhere? Did all the kangaroos
swim over as a group? Or maybe the first two did their swim before
they had any offspring?
4. Why are creationists seemingly unfamiliar with previous (pre-evolution)
creationist work on the Ark theory? (Athanasius Kircher (late 1600's)
Carl Linnaeus (late 1700's), Eberhard Zimmermann (late 1700's),
Philip Sclater (mid 1800's), Edward Forbes (mid 1800's)) Most of these
pre-evolutionary creationists have already wandered through all the dead
ends of the Ark theory over a century ago, yet modern creationists seem
to be exploring them anew, seemingly unaware of previous research in
this area.
Keith Doyle
# {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithdmrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (05/23/85)
In article <317@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) writes: > >Would someone calculate how > >big the ship has to be to hold all the animals, > >and how long it would take to construct such a vessel, given the technology > >of the day? Of course I haven't mentioned the other problems... > > ...about 18,000 species on the Ark. > > Reports of stock cars and railroads show that the average number of meat > animals to the carload is for cattle about 25, hogs in a single deck > car about 75, and sheep about 120 per deck. At least 240 animals of the > size of sheep could be accommodated in a standard two-decked car. Two > trains hauling 73 cars would be ample to carry 35,000 animals. The Ark > had a carrying capacity of 522 stock cars of these size. Your computation of carrying capacity was based on volume, not floor space. By floor space, the result is close to exactly what you estimate as needed. But in real life, you cannot pack other animals as closely as sheep. Even if you sort them to size. Looks like you need another miracle. Of course, that's accepting on face value the claim of 300 cubits for the ark. If the ark existed, that claim would be probably as exaggerated as the ages of Noah and his ilk. The size stated in the Bible is about half the size of modern super tankers. It's likely bigger than any wooden ships ever built, let alone several times bigger than ships of that period. And we are expected to believe that Noah and family built it by themselves? Looks like you need another miracle. > Hibernation may have been the way Noah was able to care for the animals. > "Hibernation and estivation occur in every group of vertibrates except > birds, and its pre-disposing causes, immediate and remote, are by no > means uniform." Encyclopedia Britannica, W. P. Pycraft, 1956, Vol 11 p 539 Trips in cattle-cars are brief, so that the animals need little care. Even if all the natural hibernators and estivators did their thing, the ark wouldn't have room for 40 days food for the remaining thousands of animals. Not to mention all the different kinds of food. Not to mention the labor involved in feeding several thousand animals. Looks like you need another miracle. > Gen. 6:20 Two of every sort SHALL COME UNTO THEE! > (The animals came to Noah) Looks like another miracle. > >where did the water come from, where did it go, how did the animals reach > >their geographically distant isolated regions, did Noah take plants as well, > >how did he collect all the species, how can an animal travel half way around > >the world without leaving a trace or offspring, etc etc etc. > > On the second day of creation, the waters covering the surface of the > earth were divided by an expanse or firmament. In other words there > was a great reservoir of water surrounding the earth as well as the > great seas below the dry land. Geophysical evidense leads us to recognize > that there must have been a worldwide warm climate. The Miocene, Ogliocene, > Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, and Carboniferous, era's all > boast of universal warm climate as predicted by the "canopy of vapors" > advocates. For every thirty feet of water the "canopy" held, it would have increased pressure on the surface of the earth by another atmosphere. How many thousand feet of water were there in your "vapor canopy"? And what about transmission of light through it? The sun must have looked pretty dim after shining through all that liquid or vapor. Sounds like you need more miracles. > Genesis 7:11 All the fountains of the great deep were broken up. > (This did not stop until the 150th day.) Gen 8:2 > Gen 7:4 and 7:12 - The rains came upon the earth forty days and nights. > > The topography of the continental shelves, the irregularity of coastlines, > the great submarine canyons, seamounts, and many other factors seem to > indicate that they were formed at least in part at a time when the sea > level was relatively lower by several hundred feet than at present. > The continental shelves themselves are evidence of a former lower sea > level, since their edges mark the true boundaries between ocean basins > and continental blocks. But if the waters covered all the surfaces of the earth, what happened to the water that covered the numerous areas that are now above water? Looks like you need another miracle. > As for the animals leaving the Ark, many animals have been known to > migrate over very long distances. "The Migration of Animals", Mathews. > I would suggest that after leaving the Ark, many animals migrated into > different parts of the world into places that were better suited for them > to live. Or, many animals may have migrated because of an over abundance But why would only marsupials migrate to Australia? It sounds as if more miracles are required to direct ONLY certain animals to certain localities. We're talking more than a hundred marsupial species, and no placental species (except bats.) > I realize even now before posting this that most of you will not even > consider these as possibilities. Why? Because the supernatural is > involved and science can not tolerate the supernatural. However, science > seems to be incredibly tolerable of all the many inconsistencies of > uniformitarianism. Geological evidences of the Flood will be ignored > on the basis of the theory's origin. For science to be truly objective, > prejudice such as this must be eliminated. Science has spent the last few hundreds of years shedding the very superstitious prejudices you are trying to reinstate. Show us the geological evidences that gradulism cannot explain, and "flood theory" can. The fact is, that with enough miracles, you can explain anything in the bible, and make it consistant with the evidence we have today. "Oh, god pushed up mountains after the flood." "Oh, god planted evidence in the fossil record." But adding on miracle after miracle, you gradually build a tottery ediface of epicycles pushed by angels that eventually will topple under its own clumsy artifice and by supplanted by a scientific explanation. That's what happened to flood geology more than a hundred years ago, just as the Ptolomeic universe was displaced by the Copernican several hundred years earlier. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
CJC@psuvm.BITNET (05/25/85)
Dan Boskovich recently posted a lengthy article under this heading;
those who read it may be interested in knowing that everything in Dan's
article came from "The Genesis Flood" by John C. Whitcomb, Jr., Th.D.
and Henry M. Morris, Ph.D., (Copyright 1961.) The quotations Dan
gave are exactly as they appear in this book and all non-quoted ideas are
very close paraphrases. I can understand not wanting to type in lots and
lots of bibliographic references, but when the entire article comes from
just one book (with direct quotes even, he had to have the book beside
him when typing) I think the source should be named.
I was quite disappointed at the limited source of information of the only
person who really tried to reply on this topic; the book is very strongly
religious (many chapters are entirely biblical interpretation - Whitcomb
is, after all, a professor of theology), and it attempts to explain
everything but so briefly that it explains nothing satisfactorily. The
question of how was vegetation reestablished after the flood is dealt with
in a few paragraphs about the possible survival of plants in floating
masses (rafts) of vegetation, or by chance shallow burial, or as seeds
included in the ark in food supplies, then a longer description of the
olive tree which is apparantly a tough adaptable plant which reproduces
readily from cuttings. Perhaps Dan could find a reference which explains
the survival of the many species of cactus which are adapted only to dry
conditions; this reference should also explain the geographical distribution
of cactus - according to my gardening and wild-flower books, the many
species of cactus are, with possibly one exception, confined to the
desert regions of America. The deserts of all other parts of the world
have distinctly different vegetation. And then he could consider the
low-bush blueberry which is extremely difficult to propagate either by
seeds or by cuttings. The plants spread by underground stems, and I read
some years that on the basis of the slow rate of spreading some of the
largest clumps were in contention for the oldest living plant on earth.
As for the distribution of animals, Morris and Whitcomb go on for some
time on migration possibilities, then end with this paragraph:
"The more we study the fascinating story of animal distribution
around the earth, the more convinced we have become that this vast
river of variegated life forms, moving ever outward from the Asiatic
mainland, across the continents and seas, has not been a chance and
haphazard phenomenon. Instead, we see the hand of God guiding and
directing these creatures in ways that man, with all his ingenuity,
has never been able to fathom, in order that the great commission to
the postdiluvian animal kingdom might be carried out, and "that they
may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply
upon the earth." (Gen. 8:17)"
In other words, the koala, the wombat, the bandicoot, the duck-billed
platypus, and all the other marsupials are in Australia, and nowhere
else, because God wanted them there; and rabbits and deer - good travelers
excellently suited to Australia and New Zealand - were not there because
God did not want them there (and he was right, wasn't he, see how much
trouble they've caused :-))
If this net is for discussing the *SCIENTIFIC* origins of the present
world, then please let us have no more appeals to "The Genesis Flood".
--Carolyn J. Clark
Bitnet: CJC at PSUVM
UUCP : :allegra, akgua, ihnp4:!psuvax!CJC@PSUVM.BITNET
ARPA : cjc%psuvm.BITNET@Berkeley
brian@digi-g.UUCP (Merlyn Leroy) (05/28/85)
References: Dan Boskovich defends Noah's ark: > There has been great diversification within species in the last > 5000 years.... > For example, the wild rock pigeon has diversified into several strains > such as the pouter, the leghorn runt, the fantail, the tumbler, the owl, > the turbit, the swallow, the carrier, the nun, the jacobin, and the > homer. Isn't this somewhat akin to evolution? Or is "diversification" different? > Climactic zones were not necessarily the same before the flood(universal > warm climate) and the animals may not have inhabited the same areas > as they do now. Animals may have been more widely distributed than now! > > As for the animals leaving the Ark, many animals have been known to > migrate over very long distances. > I would suggest that after leaving the Ark, many animals migrated into > different parts of the world into places that were better suited for them > to live... Then why are kangaroos found on the only continent which has kangaroo fossils? (also ancestors like the giant kangaroo). Likewise for armadillos, ostriches, etc etc etc. > For science to be truly objective, > prejudice such as this must be eliminated. > > Dan For science to be truly objective, 1) look at data 2) form theory 3) test theory 4) repeat ad infinitum Not, 1) look at certain book 2) look at data 3) form theory that does not contradict (1) and least contradicts (2) 4) don't bother testing theory 5) argue ad infinitum Merlyn Leroy Primordial Slime
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (06/03/85)
In article <618@digi-g.UUCP> brian@digi-g.UUCP (brian) writes: > >> As for the animals leaving the Ark, many animals have been known to >> migrate over very long distances. >> I would suggest that after leaving the Ark, many animals migrated into >> different parts of the world into places that were better suited for them >> to live... > >Then why are kangaroos found on the only continent which has kangaroo fossils? >(also ancestors like the giant kangaroo). Likewise for armadillos, >ostriches, etc etc etc. > Actually, there is even a more significant problem. Australia is isolated from the Middle East(where the ark is supposed to have been) by a large expanse of water. How did the kangaroos *cross* this water? Did they build themselves boats?!:-) or what? And armadillos being an American group had to cross an even larger water barrier, the Atlantic Ocean, which doesn't even have many islands to be used for island hopping! This is why many 19th century creationists(before Darwin) postulated multiple centers of creation. Of course this required the elimination of the universal flood, or having most animals created anew after the flood with only those in the Middle East being saved by Noah. Come on, if you want to convince anyone please come up with a believable mechanism for current biogeographical patterns! -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
ughenry@sunybcs.UUCP (Henry Neeman) (06/04/85)
> >Could someone more knowledgeable than I do me a favor, > >and compute a rough lower bound for the number of species that have lived > >in the last 10,000 years. Since species never evolve :-), > >they must have *all* been present on the ark. > Here is a list of species put out by Ernst Mayr in 1951. > > Mammals 3,500 > Birds 8,600 > Reptiles & Amphibians 5,500 > Fishes 18,000 > Tunicates, etc. 1,700 > Echinoderms 4,700 > Arthropods 815,000 > Mollusks 88,000 > Worms, etc. 25,000 > Coelenterates, etc. 10,000 > Sponges 5,000 > Protozoans 15,000 > Dan Dan, why would you use such old figures? Recent estimates (1980's, I can't quote the source [I know that's taboo] but I'm positive of this) put the number of species of BEETLES at circa THREE MILLION. This appears to be a great deal more than the total (one million) of your (Mayr's) figures. -- Henry J. Neeman (ughenry@buffalo) Mail, mail, send me mail!