Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

We Dodged Extinction
ABCNews ^ | Lee Dye

Posted on 01/29/2002 7:23:19 PM PST by Sabertooth

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161-173 next last
To: John H K
I don't argue for a young Earth, and I'm not claiming this as evidence for the Flood, I'm just enjoying the convergence of the near extinction stories.


61 posted on 01/29/2002 8:12:47 PM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
The effects of the eruption would have been the LEAST negative on humans in Equatorial Africa....where chimps lived in the first place. It's hypothesized that most of the humans that survived also lived in Equatorial Africa; this is why Africa has more human diversity, much more, than anywhere else; A Norwegian and an Italian are more gentically similar, in many cases, than an African in one tribe and an African in another tribe a few miles down the road.

It's not unusual for extinction events to have a larger effect on some animals compared to others. For one thing, they tend to affect animals more the larger they are (witness dinosaurs and mammals) and humans are a little bigger than chimps.

62 posted on 01/29/2002 8:13:19 PM PST by John H K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Rushian
A grand statement totally unsupported by any evidence whatsoever!

I ask you again which statement did I make that is unsupported by any evidence?

63 posted on 01/29/2002 8:13:37 PM PST by realpatriot71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
...but the eruption didn't effect chimps?

That would depend on where the populations resided and the relative numbers. If (for example) Toba were the culprit and a large portion of humans lived in Asia while a large portion of the chimps were in Afrika, the effect on humans could have been much greater. It's also possible that there were more chimps around then so killing 90% would still live the chimps with more individuals. There's no reason to expect similar effects on the different species.

64 posted on 01/29/2002 8:15:15 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Victoria Delsoul
You've just ended the entire debate, Baby. Science and Creation are both wrong....

All is evil and madness!


65 posted on 01/29/2002 8:15:27 PM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: realpatriot71
Maybe the three wives were identical triplets! You have to look at all the statistical possibilities.
66 posted on 01/29/2002 8:16:07 PM PST by Rushian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
LOL!!!
67 posted on 01/29/2002 8:16:45 PM PST by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: realpatriot71
BUT each of these had a genetically different wife.

Maybe, but probably not...

Who was the wife of Seth, son of Adam and Eve? His sister. You know that later, Sarah was Abraham's sister, as well as his wife, right? Prohibitions against incest did not come until later, under Moses I believe.

According to the Genesis story and Hebrew legend, there was much sexual perversion and comingling with demonic seed among the antediluvians... Noah's family was untainted. It's likely that the wives of Noah's sons were closely related.


68 posted on 01/29/2002 8:21:14 PM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Rushian
Maybe the three wives were identical triplets! You have to look at all the statistical possibilities.

Grasping at straws. Besides the Bible does not say they were sisters. I guess you have to skew the facts at every chance to fit your model of origins - most people call that intellectual dishonesty.

You still have not pointed to any statement I have made that is not supported.

69 posted on 01/29/2002 8:21:39 PM PST by realpatriot71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Human extinction ? First ,the flood--Now ,my mother-in-law.
70 posted on 01/29/2002 8:25:43 PM PST by Captain Shady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: realpatriot71
If the flood happened between 10,000 and 4000 years ago, there is no where near enough time for this much non-deletrious mutation and recombination to occur in order to see the differences that we do. This is the statement you grandly provided for the evolutionaryly deprived.
71 posted on 01/29/2002 8:25:53 PM PST by Rushian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: John H K
It's not unusual for extinction events to have a larger effect on some animals compared to others. For one thing, they tend to affect animals more the larger they are (witness dinosaurs and mammals) and humans are a little bigger than chimps.

Barely. This is weak. We're not talking aboout anything like the size difference between a Triceratops and possum.


72 posted on 01/29/2002 8:26:36 PM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
According to the Genesis story and Hebrew legend, there was much sexual perversion and comingling with demonic seed among the antediluvians... Noah's family was untainted. It's likely that the wives of Noah's sons were closely related.

I've heard this speculation before, and I'm not doubting it, but I feel that the first part of Genesis 6 is rather obscure, and could mean any number of things, including God chose Noah because he was righteous.

Ok, here's something else to think about. God made two individuals. Obviously humanity had to come from these two, and then from their children. Adam and Eve would have had to of been quite different genetically in order for their children's children not to have problems. If this is the case then, God must have created genetic diversity into the human race as a way to avoid problems with the genetics of bother/sister pairings. In this way it still goes against the data, people should still have more genetic diversity.

Another possible idea I just thought of, was that there was no such thing as a recessive trait until the fall of man. Man's gene's were perfect, but became over time more and more imperfect due to exposure to mutagens. Imagine the possible amount of muation a germ line could take up when the people were living 900+ years. This could possibly help explain the genetic diversity we see with the chimps..

73 posted on 01/29/2002 8:30:41 PM PST by realpatriot71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: John H K
There is evidence worldwide for a massive flood. Those who rule our a universal flood explain the evidence by positing many large local floods. Life that dies on the surface decays and disappears. If it is suddenly trapped and encased by sediment at high pressure it produces raw petroleum. Fossils themselves are evidence of a flood. The highest peaks on earth feature fossils of marine life. Unless mollusks are really good mountain climbers the anti-catastrophists have an immense problem.
74 posted on 01/29/2002 8:33:35 PM PST by razorbak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: realpatriot71
Another possible idea I just thought of, was that there was no such thing as a recessive trait until the fall of man. Man's gene's were perfect, but became over time more and more imperfect due to exposure to mutagens.

Here's where I have a problem with Evolution... where is the evidence of mutagenic speciation? Let alone randomly mutagenic evolution?


75 posted on 01/29/2002 8:33:56 PM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
There's no way that I descended from a knuckle-dragging, hairy ape. Alec Baldwin, maybe, but not I. :)
76 posted on 01/29/2002 8:35:12 PM PST by vikingchick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: realpatriot71
Don't understand. The fall of man took place in the first generation. And the age differences was the point I made earlier to explain the greater changes in the chimp descendants from Noah's two.
77 posted on 01/29/2002 8:36:20 PM PST by Rushian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: vikingchick
There's no way that I descended from a knuckle-dragging, hairy ape.

Here's how I look at it...

Whether or not my forefathers were apes, Jesus' mother was a virgin.


78 posted on 01/29/2002 8:40:00 PM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: realpatriot71
God must have created genetic diversity into the human race as a way to avoid problems with the genetics of bother/sister pairings.

Why? You think if he was such an all powerful being, he could make DNA that didn't have sibling problems. You make him sound like a hacker banging out a quick and dirty work around to a bad initial design.

79 posted on 01/29/2002 8:41:07 PM PST by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
You think if he was such an all powerful being, he could make DNA that didn't have sibling problems. You make him sound like a hacker banging out a quick and dirty work around to a bad initial design.

Why would the capacity for genetic diversity be an indicator of bad initial design?


80 posted on 01/29/2002 8:44:32 PM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161-173 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson