Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Genetic problems with genesis, the great flood, etc
be LIE ve
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 81 (258935)
11-11-2005 5:09 PM


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by arachnophilia, posted 11-12-2005 12:00 AM be LIE ve has replied
 Message 7 by randman, posted 11-12-2005 2:34 AM be LIE ve has not replied
 Message 8 by bkelly, posted 11-12-2005 9:30 AM be LIE ve has not replied

  
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 81 (259004)
11-11-2005 10:48 PM


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


  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 3 of 81 (259014)
11-12-2005 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by be LIE ve
11-11-2005 5:09 PM


devil's advocate post, beware
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.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by be LIE ve, posted 11-11-2005 5:09 PM be LIE ve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by be LIE ve, posted 11-12-2005 1:17 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
be LIE ve
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 81 (259019)
11-12-2005 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by arachnophilia
11-12-2005 12:00 AM


Re: devil's advocate post, beware
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by arachnophilia, posted 11-12-2005 12:00 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by arachnophilia, posted 11-12-2005 1:42 AM be LIE ve has not replied
 Message 6 by randman, posted 11-12-2005 2:25 AM be LIE ve has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 5 of 81 (259022)
11-12-2005 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by be LIE ve
11-12-2005 1:17 AM


Re: devil's advocate post, beware
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?

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by be LIE ve, posted 11-12-2005 1:17 AM be LIE ve has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 6 of 81 (259026)
11-12-2005 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by be LIE ve
11-12-2005 1:17 AM


Re: devil's advocate post, beware
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by be LIE ve, posted 11-12-2005 1:17 AM be LIE ve has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 7 of 81 (259027)
11-12-2005 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by be LIE ve
11-11-2005 5:09 PM


the laws changed
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by be LIE ve, posted 11-11-2005 5:09 PM be LIE ve has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2005 9:47 AM randman has replied
 Message 10 by ringo, posted 11-12-2005 11:10 AM randman has replied
 Message 35 by Ooook!, posted 11-13-2005 6:54 AM randman has replied

  
bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 81 (259050)
11-12-2005 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by be LIE ve
11-11-2005 5:09 PM


not completely bad
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by be LIE ve, posted 11-11-2005 5:09 PM be LIE ve has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 9 of 81 (259053)
11-12-2005 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by randman
11-12-2005 2:34 AM


Re: the laws changed
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.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by randman, posted 11-12-2005 2:34 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by randman, posted 11-12-2005 12:59 PM RAZD has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 10 of 81 (259074)
11-12-2005 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by randman
11-12-2005 2:34 AM


Re: the laws changed
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by randman, posted 11-12-2005 2:34 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by randman, posted 11-12-2005 1:00 PM ringo has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 11 of 81 (259090)
11-12-2005 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by RAZD
11-12-2005 9:47 AM


Re: the laws changed
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2005 9:47 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by be LIE ve, posted 11-12-2005 2:30 PM randman has replied
 Message 29 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2005 9:50 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 12 of 81 (259091)
11-12-2005 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by ringo
11-12-2005 11:10 AM


Re: the laws changed
Paul mentions it in Romans and denounces it as worthy of death.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by ringo, posted 11-12-2005 11:10 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by ringo, posted 11-12-2005 1:16 PM randman has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 13 of 81 (259100)
11-12-2005 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by randman
11-12-2005 1:00 PM


Re: the laws changed
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by randman, posted 11-12-2005 1:00 PM randman has not replied

  
be LIE ve
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 81 (259119)
11-12-2005 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by randman
11-12-2005 12:59 PM


Re: the laws changed
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by randman, posted 11-12-2005 12:59 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by randman, posted 11-12-2005 2:41 PM be LIE ve has replied
 Message 16 by be LIE ve, posted 11-12-2005 2:44 PM be LIE ve has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 15 of 81 (259120)
11-12-2005 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by be LIE ve
11-12-2005 2:30 PM


Re: the laws changed
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by be LIE ve, posted 11-12-2005 2:30 PM be LIE ve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by be LIE ve, posted 11-12-2005 2:49 PM randman has replied
 Message 20 by crashfrog, posted 11-12-2005 2:55 PM randman has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024