It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: Shadow Herder
I tend to think that the noah story should not be taken as a literal account of history,
I tend to
very much agree.
originally posted by: Shadow Herder
a reply to: amazing
Read carefully before replying, it will save everyone time.
Second, I don't know what Bible they're reading, but every translation I've read says that God commanded Noah to take seven pairs of all clean animals (many of the largest animals, like cattle are considered clean), and one pair of the unclean animals. That would significantly increase the number of animals aboard.
For simplicity's sake, "kind" means being able to
Anyway, reading the Bible, it seems like God only told Noah to take all land animals, which probably means bears, lions, horses, elephants(the original ancestors)
The insects, rodents and "other events created by God elsewhere" were probably created after the Flood, and were not mentioned, and only Abraham's account was.
originally posted by: np6888
For simplicity's sake, "kind" means being able to mate with each other, for example, wolves can mate with dogs and coyotes, lions, tigers, and jaguars can mate with each other, zebras and donkeys can mate, etc. To me, the dog can be considered a "microly-evolved(smaller with different traits) wolf. To put it another way, it can be considered a variation of the wolf, not a different "species."
Now here's the thing, the Bible doesn't actually say that rapid, micro-evolution is out of the question. In other words, it's entirely possible for all of these animals to have evolved AFTER the flood. In fact, there's evidence that the blonde hair blue eyes trait evolved as recently as 4000 years ago. Scroll down to Bronze Age Warrior from Poland(try to read the comments also):
Our Y-DNA's mutation rate is 3 X 10^-9(found on that same page), and we have 37 trillion cells, so this is entirely possible.
We can define each kind in the Bible or redefine species from a scientific standpoint as all species with the same number of chromosomes, and assumes that neither God nor evolution allows macro-evolution. This makes a lot of sense because when the number of chromosomes changes, you lose the ability to mate with your parents entirely. That's why, from an evolutionary standpoint, an animal would never be "dumb" enough to pass this trait to its offspring, as the only other way for that offspring to mate and have kids is for them to have another kid of the opposite sex, with the same mutation of change in chromosomes number, or another member of another family, with the same mutation of change in chromosome number.
And if an animal cannot change the number of chromosomes through evolution and effectively spread, then the only way is through...God. To prove macro-evolution, I think we need to at least prove whether a mutation where a change in the number of chromosomes is possible.
Anyway, reading the Bible, it seems like God only told Noah to take all land animals, which probably means bears, lions, horses, elephants(the original ancestors) and some original species of birds. The insects, rodents and "other events created by God elsewhere" were probably created after the Flood, and were not mentioned, and only Abraham's account was. The rest of the species microly-evolved from those. Of course, he could have simply created them after the Flood, while Abraham was living his life, but again, were not mentioned. I think the most "kind" that he had are all species with the same number of chromosomes in the list below:
Note that the list also contains plants. Also, note that species with the same number of chromosome not being able to mate with each other doesn't necessarily disprove the argument above, because God could have just simply created them that way.