The so-called global flood--evidence against

[1213]

Of any extinct species, fossils are very rare. We only find and study a tiny percentage of their original numbers. A "deformed" individual would be pretty rare in any population, making the probability of it being preserved and found much smaller.

Deformed individual would most likely end up in situation where it could become a fossil.

But, I think it is interesting that you admit that fossils are very rare, but still you seem to expect us to believe that we can make conclusion from the fossils that are found.

 

[1213]

Wait a second, then you have to admit that the ages from radiometric dating are reliable.

Why would I have to do so?

 

[1213]

Your nonsense requires all bear species to come from a single breeding pair in just a few millenia.
The difference between these species is not a mere "little variation in color and size".
It's absurd to even suggest that.

Please tell, what is the biggest difference in modern bear "species"?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Please tell, what is the biggest difference in modern bear "species"?

The "biggest" difference is by itself not a meaningfull thing to say. Differences are differences.

The various bear species differ in morphology, hibernation patterns and diets.

 

[Tamino]

Please tell, what is the biggest difference in modern bear "species"?

The biggest difference is between the Ursini and the rest of the clade.
Here's the group that is genetically pretty close and can or did interbreed:

And here's the wider clade with those that are sitting on their own branches of the ursid tree and are genetically much different:

 

[Tamino]

Deformed individual would most likely end up in situation where it could become a fossil.

Why?

But, I think it is interesting that you admit that fossils are very rare, but still you seem to expect us to believe that we can make conclusion from the fossils that are found.

Where do you see the issue?
Yes to both - fossils are very rare, as compared to the entirety of animals that ever lived and died. And science works with the finds we gave and tries to draw conclusions from those we find.

That's why science keeps changing. We build models, we test them, we make predictions and see if the hold weight. And when new finds come in, either the current model gets supported or it gets discarded in favor of a better model.

The problem with the creationist model is NOT that it is religious or that it has a different story. It's that it doesn't hold weight when tested.
Scientists, as a whole, are not anti-religious and would be fine with a global flood, if just there was any evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Deformed individual would most likely end up in situation where it could become a fossil.

But, I think it is interesting that you admit that fossils are very rare, but still you seem to expect us to believe that we can make conclusion from the fossils that are found.

How do you even justify that nonsense? You just told us that you know nothing of fossilization.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why would I have to do so?

Because if you do not that means that you made a dishonest request. You do not get to accept some of science and reject the rest. You keep performing acts of science denial. You do not like reality when it goes against your religious beliefs.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Deformed individual would most likely end up in situation where it could become a fossil.

What the heck? Why do you think this?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What the heck? Why do you think this?

Deformed animals without health care lose all hope and look for the nearest tar pit to jump into.

 

[1213]

Because if you do not that means that you made a dishonest request. You do not get to accept some of science and reject the rest. You keep performing acts of science denial. You do not like reality when it goes against your religious beliefs.

I don't think reality is against my beliefs. And science that can be tested is not a problem for me.

 

[1213]

What the heck? Why do you think this?

Deformed is not usually as agile for example as not deformed, which is why deformed can more easily get stuck in a place where fossilization could occur.

 

[1213]

Why?

Deformed is not usually as agile for example as not deformed, which is why deformed can more easily get stuck in a place where fossilization could occur.

Where do you see the issue?

If they are rare, they can't tell accurately the history.

That's why science keeps changing. We build models, we test them, we make predictions and see if the hold weight. And when new finds come in, either the current model gets supported or it gets discarded in favor of a better model.

Yeah, and that is why the conclusion are not very useful for to decide anything significant.

...would be fine with a global flood, if just there was any evidence.

I think world is full of evidence for the great flood.

 

[1213]

The various bear species differ in morphology, hibernation patterns and diets.

By that, modern people could also be divided into several species.

I think it is also interesting, why for example Chihuahua and German Shepherd are not different species.

 

[Tamino]

Deformed is not usually as agile for example as not deformed, which is why deformed can more easily get stuck in a place where fossilization could occur.

Yeah, but according to your flood hypothesis the majority of fossilized animals all died in the same catastrophic event: Being 'non-deformed' wouldn't have saved anyone from the flood, right? So in the entirety of the fossil record, you should still find a majority of regular phenotypes.
And anyway, if you claim a 'deformity' that is explained by science as probably a different species, it would be something that's not obviously pathological (if it was, it would be easily recognized as such, since we can compare it to modern bones with traces of injury or tumors or such.) and if it's not pathological, then there's no obvious reason for the individual to be less agile. And again: no reason for the fossil record to be biased towards deformed individuals.

If they are rare, they can't tell accurately the history.

No, they can't. Total accuracy in our reconstruction of the past is not realistic. That's why we have models and theories and discussions. That's why scientists argue and pick each other's data apart in peer review.
But that doesn't mean that we know nothing at all, it's not black and white... we have a lot of good data and solid theories. You just need to learn how to see the gray areas and understand which theories have more certainty.

For example, just look at evolution: people have been constructing taxonomy and phylogeny for a long time and came up with this family tree of all life, all based on morphology.
And then genetics were developed to a point where we can compare entire genomes. It's a completely separate method. And yet, when applied to phylogeny, we discover the same family tree of life on earth, with just a few minor adjustments. This is a huge confirmation of the model.

Yeah, and that is why the conclusion are not very useful for to decide anything significant.

To quote Dawkins: "Planes fly. Cars drive. Computers compute. If you base medicine on science, you cure people. If you base the design of planes on science, they fly. If you base the design of rockets on science, they reach the moon. It works... *****es."

I think world is full of evidence for the great flood.

I think your mind is full of this idea and your confirmation bias is giving you tunnel vision.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

By that, modern people could also be divided into several species.

No, they could not.

I think it is also interesting, why for example Chihuahua and German Shepherd are not different species.

Because they aren't. They are different breeds of the same species.
Having said that, it's interesting to note that through artificial selection, we were able to change the morphology of dogs much faster then nature does.
Off course, most of these "exotic" morphologies (like chihuahua for example) wouldn't stand a chance in the wild. This is what happens if we humans decide which traits to select for based on cosmetics / cuteness instead of natural selection selecting for this based on survival & reproduction.

But note that the genetic differences between such dogs are actually smaller then they are between say polar bears and grizzlies.

 

[1213]

But note that the genetic differences between such dogs are actually smaller then they are between say polar bears and grizzlies.

It is interesting, if that is true, because visibly the difference is smaller in bears.

 

[1213]

Yeah, but according to your flood hypothesis the majority of fossilized animals all died in the same catastrophic event:
Being 'non-deformed' wouldn't have saved anyone from the flood, right?

The flood event lasted about a year. It had different phases that had different results.

Non deformed could have had better chance to escape the first phases of the flood.

So in the entirety of the fossil record, you should still find a majority of regular phenotypes.

No, because certain animals would not as easily get stuck in the sediments.

 

[Tamino]

The flood event lasted about a year. It had different phases that had different results.

Non deformed could have had better chance to escape the first phases of the flood.

Do you have any support for this apart from "could have"?

I'd expect that the flood phases you propose would affect certain regions of the earth first. There are very few animals that are able to leave an area fast enough to avoid a large-scale natural disaster. If we use our example of Proboscideans... Do you really think all the mammoths could run faster and swim better than the gomphotheres, who have a different tooth structure but similar morphology?
What about the fact that we find young animals and even eggs of the same species in the same layer, but the different morphologies - your proposed "deformed individual" in a different layer?
If it was a matter of fitness to survive the catastrophe longer, all the really young ones should be in the lowest layers, right?

No, because certain animals would not as easily get stuck in the sediments.

Why? You have brought up this topic previously, but you haven't presented any model apart from "the deformed is less agile"... But in a global catastrophe, even the "more agile" would die eventually, and then what exactly is keeping them from "getting stuck in the sediments"?

Really, I am trying my best to understand your reasoning, but it still seems lacking in substance...

 

[1213]

Do you have any support for this apart from "could have"?

Deformed means something that has not grown normally. For example limbs are not fully grown, or are not functioning correctly. Logically in this case the ability to escape is not as good as with something with no disabilities.

I'd expect that the flood phases you propose would affect certain regions of the earth first. There are very few animals that are able to leave an area fast enough to avoid a large-scale natural disaster. If we use our example of Proboscideans... Do you really think all the mammoths could run faster and swim better than the gomphotheres, who have a different tooth structure but similar morphology?

Mammoths may be slow, but it is possible that they lived in an area that didn't have similar risk to be buried in sediments the same way as other animals.

What about the fact that we find young animals and even eggs of the same species in the same layer, but the different morphologies - your proposed "deformed individual" in a different layer?

To answer this, I would need to see the exact situation, images of the site where they are found.

If it was a matter of fitness to survive the catastrophe longer, all the really young ones should be in the lowest layers, right?

On the other hand, all light stuff could be carried so that they are not stuck. Heavier animals would more easily get stuck.

Why? You have brought up this topic previously, but you haven't presented any model apart from "the deformed is less agile"... But in a global catastrophe, even the "more agile" would die eventually, and then what exactly is keeping them from "getting stuck in the sediments"?

The things affecting on how beings would die on the event are:
1) the location where the being is
2) the structure, weight and size of the being. Some are light and therefore don't get stuck as easily.
3) the abilities of the being, for example run or grawl. Some animals float, when they die.
4) How the flood carried stuff to that specific location.

Interesting thing is also, we don't have perfect record of all sediments. I think it could be possible still that the lowest strata has actually species "that should not be there". We just have not excavated everything. That is why I think it is not good to draw too much conclusions of the current findings.

Really, I am trying my best to understand your reasoning

Thank you.