|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Genetic problems with genesis, the great flood, etc | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
be LIE ve Inactive Member |
One question i had always wondered about was how the creationism was to account for a sustainable gene pool. it's been proven that if too little genitic diversity is repeatedly reproduced, (i.e. one related family reproducing over and over and over, mother with father, son with daughter, so on and so on) that inbreeding and physical/health problems result. for example. if adam and eve were the ancestors of all humans, our survival rate would be crippled and we'd all be inbred. the same goes for the flood story, if there were only 2 of each animal, how could a sustainable population result? espcially with larger mammals (humans included) in breeding can result in as few as 2 generations.
inbreeding creates situations where organisms actually become LESS fit for survival, thus in dischord with what all modern research shows us. most animals avoid breeding with kin to the extreems, sometimes even with hostility to relatives. so if this is true, how is it possible to have genitically sustainable populations today if genisis/flood theory is true?
{Change "Genitic" to "Genetic", "genisis" to "genesis" in topic title. - Adminnemooseus} This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-15-2006 06:14 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNWR Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
Welcome to EvC forum, be LIE ve. I placed your topic in one of the religious forums, hoping that it will receive more attention there. There might not be many responses, but it is worth a try. This message has been edited by AdminNWR, 11-11-2005 09:53 PM To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
or rather, fundie advocate. but whatever.
if adam and eve were the ancestors of all humans, our survival rate would be crippled and we'd all be inbred. evolution is an idea that includes common ancestry -- all life on earth should theoretically share a common ancesrot. why is this different? besides, where the heck did cain's wife come from? apparently, god didn't STOP creating. (eve is still the mother of all mankind, because she is noah's maternal ancestor...)
inbreeding creates situations where organisms actually become LESS fit for survival, not quite. there is a breeding population of lizards out in arizon and nevada i think. their reproduction is a little more extreme than inbreeding. they're exactly the same genetically. so essentially, it's a breeding population of one individual. in evolutionary thought, that's putting all your eggs in one basket. which is quite risky. also, i'd be suprised if bonobos don't inbreed on a regular basis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
be LIE ve Inactive Member |
i think youre taking the term "common ancestry" a bit too literally. i feel like youre perciving it as "everything began with one organism, and everything derrived from that" where in reality, it was a collective of organisms with similarities allowing interaction.
inbreeding (especially to a degree to which would exist if the great flood stories were accurage) would create infertile conditions almost immediately. Inbreeding in nature is most commonly avoided, this is why captive breeding is so difficult, especially in small populations. There are a few small cases of organisms that have adapted to reproduce effectively with a primary set of genitic material, most of these species are micro organisms that are not dioecious (theyre hermaphroditic). you are correct in stating that evolution includes detail about common ancestry, but in youre incorrect by using that to support your arguement. Common ancestry just shows progression and differentiation of species which stem from a common ancestor species, (i.e. when 2 present day species origionated from an earlier common species) but does not assume that all life came from one single common organism. Factors such as mutation, and genitic drift do allow for variation on a grandeur scale, but have very little application when the sample size is decresed (especially to a number as low as 2 animals). A small event could completely eliminate a species, say if one member of the pair of the species died on the ark. Essentially, according to genitics, its impossible for 2 animals to result in a viable, fertile, and growing population. There simply isnt enough genitic diversity. This especially holds true to animals that would be of interest, i.e. macro vertebrates such as mammals, reptiles, avians, etc. In nature, as stated before, animals go to great lengths to avoid reproduction with close family members.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
a good argument.
Essentially, according to genitics, its impossible for 2 animals to result in a viable, fertile, and growing population. what about my lesbian clone lizards of the american west? they have LESS THAN two individuals in the breeding population: they're all genetically the same. would you say 2 is bad, but one is ok?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
everything derrived from that" where in reality, it was a collective of organisms with similarities allowing interaction. It was? Got some evidence for that? If you are claiming a whole group of creatures all simultaneously generated all at once, isn't the fact we never observe even one instance of this occuring for one new organism a little disturbing to go on to say it happened for a whole group all at once?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
The way I have always looked at it is that some physical principles were changed. In other words, back then it would not be wrong and not cause the same problems as today.
If you read the Bible closely, you will notice that Aberaham's wife, Sarah, was also his half-sister, and of course there are historical accounts of Pharoahs marrying their sister or a close relative. The Bible gives no hint that Aberaham's marriage was incestous, but by Moses' time, such a thing was taboo and against the Law. Thus the biblical narrative implies that God changed the moral law and as a result of that aspects of physical principles such that incestous relationships would be prone to more problems. That's how I read it anyway. Off-topic, but I am surprised pro-homosexual Bible beleivers have not noticed this and argued that there has been a change in what is right in the sexual arena related to them as well. I am not saying I agree with that, but I think they could make a doctrinal argument that perhaps sexual mores are not as fixed in stone as some may think from God's perspective and argue they have related to the command to replenish the earth, and just as once the population increased a long time ago, incest became taboo, so now that we have a perhaps overpopulation, that the purpose and need to for "multiplying" has lessened and homosexual sex would be OK. just rambling....and no, I am not making that argument, but it is one way to explain away the condemnations of homosexuality in the New Testament.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bkelly Inactive Member |
My conclusions from reading about evolution is that inbreeding (incest if you prefer) is not necessarily bad. (Remember Egyptians?) In the race for survival that we call evolution, those with faulty genes tend to die leaving no or fewer decendants. This does not necessarily mean that the faulty gene is eliminated, they may become recessive. When close relatives breed, the there is a tendancy for bad recessive genes to once again become dominant.
Brother sister and first cousin breeding do not guarentee malformed idiots for children. I have read that some who raise birds, on ocassion, mate parent with child to help establish a particular characteristics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The way I have always looked at it is that some physical principles were changed. In other words, back then it would not be wrong and not cause the same problems as today. In other words, to make your belief work things had to be different then, even though there is no evidence that there has been any change in the basic physical properties of the universe since the inflation. faith: 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust. 3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters. 4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. 5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith. 6. A set of principles or beliefs. denial: 1. A refusal to comply with or satisfy a request. 2.a. A refusal to grant the truth of a statement or allegation; a contradiction. .. b. Law. The opposing by a defendant of an allegation of the plaintiff. 3.a. A refusal to accept or believe something, such as a doctrine or belief. .. b. Psychology. An unconscious defense mechanism characterized by refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings. 4. The act of disowning or disavowing; repudiation. 5. Abstinence; self-denial. Enjoy. by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
randman writes: ... perhaps sexual mores are not as fixed in stone as some may think.... Of course, the only law that was "fixed in stone" was the Ten Commandments. So the only sexual more that is fixed in stone is "thou shalt not commit adultery" - which is about fidelity, not who-does-what-to-whom. Homosexuality is not mentioned. People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Actually, the Bible is evidence. It may be evidence you reject, but it evidence, as are historical accounts of Pharoahs as I posted.
The person who has no evidence here is you. You have no evidence things have always remained the same in that regard, but you stubbornly cling to the idea. That is the unproven presumption by which you judge data.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Paul mentions it in Romans and denounces it as worthy of death.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
randman writes: Paul mentions it in Romans and denounces it as worthy of death. First, you were talking about changes in the law, and whether or not the law is "set in stone". I commented, and I repeat, that the only law that is "set in stone" is the Ten Commandments. Where do you think the expression "set in stone" comes from? Second, it's a different topic, but Paul was not necessarily talking about "general" homosexuality. It seems likely that he was talking about pedophilia, etc. But most important, his thread is supposed to be about the genetic problems of inbreeding from Adam (and/or Noah). It's not about Bible apologetics. People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
be LIE ve Inactive Member |
wrong, i do have plenty of evidence that inbreeding produces infavorable conditions, as is shown in the fossil record. not to mention modern day science experiments concerning breeding. again, it is your right to accept or reject this evidence. i'm not seeing how you can discount an entire planet's worth of animals that cannot inbreed well because of an isolated species that has adapted to get along with it. Concerning me stubbornly "clining to ideas" i make my assumptions based on concrete provable evidence that has been laid out before my own two eyes. if you read a book, and ASSUME that it must be truth based solely on word of mouth and no repeatable physical evidence, that sounds far more stubborn than i do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
You don't have any evidence that physical laws and principles have remained uniform. That's the point. That's one of the great assumptions, taken on faith really, of modern science, but it is unproven. You are basing your analysis on unproven claims.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024