Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 38 (9270 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Tiktaalik
Post Volume: Total: 923,138 Year: 3,460/6,935 Month: 92/198 Week: 40/55 Day: 9/6 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Post-Noah's Flood Period is Explained by Evolution
onifre
Member (Idle past 3573 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 14 of 66 (466037)
05-12-2008 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jenifer
05-10-2008 6:12 PM


Jenifer writes,
He chose the smaller of the two types of pachyderms, leaving the mammoth to become extinct. He chose the smaller birds, leaving the dinosaurs to become extinct. He chose the smaller insect species, leaving giant dragonflies and mosquitoes to die out
The problem is that here you suggest God selected them for extinction. I thought they were killed by the flood though?
However, even if there was a flood and if you are suggesting that the Bible is the literal word, the flood would have occured sometime within the last 6000-4000 years according to Biblical scholars. What kind of 'mutations' and adaptations are you saying took place within these time lines? Seems like a short period of time for drastic mutations to occur. Im not an Evolutionary Bio. expert but, given that most mutations are neutral you kinda need those millions of years in between there to have it work properly.
If you change the flood date to a further date, to say 100 million years ago, you run into a problem, no genus homo...in fact theres barely any mammals(if any at all). Homo-sapiens like that of Noah don't come into the picture till about 100-200K years ago. If you say the flood took place some time after then you will still run into the problem of, not enough time to evolve, plus now your not really taking the Bible as the literal word anymore and are adjusting it to fit with modern day sciences' discoveries. So either let us know how literal you take it or explain further what you mean. Good theory though, I think we should call it "The Theory of Convenience". LOL, just kiding, had to though ;o)
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

All great truths begin as blasphemies

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jenifer, posted 05-10-2008 6:12 PM Jenifer has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Zucadragon, posted 05-14-2008 6:33 AM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3573 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 18 of 66 (466362)
05-14-2008 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Zucadragon
05-14-2008 6:33 AM


Isn't it that the effect of a mutation depends on the environment the organism is in, that most mutations are effectively neutral, but in some environments these mutations have a positive and in some a negative effect on te fitness of the organism ?
Yes you are right, neutral is the correct word. I have since changed it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Zucadragon, posted 05-14-2008 6:33 AM Zucadragon has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025