Questions to Justice Frangi about Noah's flood

[he_who_is_nobody]

What the flying fuck?

Do we really need to go on with this discussion? Like, at all?

You should have followed up that sentiment with this:

 

[Inferno]

I do believe that the ark would be sufficient to hold a large number frogs if needed. Here is my belief. (yes, belief) God created frogs (among other animals) with DNA laden with possibilities within limits. Quality control limits so to speak, that work in conjunction with natural selection to keep the gene code from mutating to a point where it would kill a species. If 25 frogs (or whatever number would be needed) were made with all the functions of the current 4,740 frogs, they could lose features as they dispersed. Imagine a "super frog" (which really wouldn't need to be all that super at all. But if it had all the features of 10 species that could deteriorated from it by loss of information not gain. (like blind animals found in caves)

Inferno[/url]"]Isn't it obvious? The genome was much larger then, so all mutations are deleterious; the animals were much better in their original form.

Note how easy it was to predict your answer. Isn't that unsettling? I know in advance what answer you will give (and in what way it is wrong), knowing only the question asked by Rumraket. Yet you don't even understand the question, let alone being able to form a coherent answer. If I were a creationist, I think this would trouble me more than anything else.

EDIT
I just saw this and had to ask: Are you being serious?

I think that's like saying you believe in mountains but not valleys. While I understand mountains and valleys are not the same thing obviously, I don't know how the one can be had without the other.

Look, no valleys! There are other "inselbergs" out there if you're not satisfied with this one. Valleys? Not needed.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

It is not a surprise to anyone here, that I see creationists like I see the tribesman of Papua New Guinea that are still living in present time pretty much as they did since the stone age, except of course creation have the benefit of access to modern technologies (homes, clothes) that makes them look more sophisticated but no more scientifically literate than the Papuans. Actually creationists are worse than the Papuans since knowledge is much more easily available in our culture, it is not that creationist don’t know, they refuse to know, and when they are accidentally convinced about some piece of modern knowledge they will see what is the opposite position to that and believe that instead.

For instance:

Unless you claim theistic evolution, then YES, you believe frogs evolved from a ROCK. (emphasis added)

No scientist has ever claimed that any life form has ever evolved from a rock, which is a childish fabrication from creationists in order to try to ridicule evolution. However far from having a desired effect, it actually displays a very profound ignorance of the creationists.
However for the benefit of Frangipane ignorance (for whatever it is worth) as to why it is impossible for any serious scientist to have ever claimed that any life form has evolved from a rock, lies in the Keyword serious. A serious science would suspend judgment before analyzing the consequences of a particular statement, for instance it would take in consideration that rocks are composed mainly of silica’s which is forms very non plastic molecules (even when diluted in water) and obviously can’t interact very much less replicate itself. Frogs and other organisms being quite obviously not made of silica, but rather carbon based compounds (which are the most molecularly plastic materials in existence), it becomes impossible not to note that this two events have little to do with one another other than the fact that they happen on earth. One would be no more justified in claiming that dolphins are responsible for the rings of Saturn. And being such a claim so easily dismissed, why would anyone claim it?
And why would you think that anyone would claim that?
On the other hand there are other processes, chemical processes, which are capable of producing self-replicating molecules and in conditions similar of those who were present in the early earth. Were creationists to try and ridicule abiogenesis with one of the more established hypothesis it wouldn't be quite so funny, because 1 the ideas are sound, 2 we can actually test trough A plus B that we get C.
It would be like: “hey look at this mental case, he thinks that the earth goes around the Sun, what a bonkers. Ever heard of wind? Imagine if the earth went around that fast. You either believe that the sun goes around the earth, to set in the water and to rise from the water every day, or that you are tied to the earth by rubber bands that keeps you from getting blown out of the earth while it travels at thousands and thousands of miles per hour. I don’t know what you believe, me I go with Jesus! What gravity? Even more laughable to think that a distortion of space cause by a large mass would keep you and all the elements around you in a close relative position so you wouldn't actually feel anything, yeah, what a coincidence that the people and the wind travel at the same speed, its a fine tunning of a million million million million to zero. It needs a greater miracle than God!”

Science is serious business, and if you don’t take it seriously and don’t put the effort of getting things done correctly, you can grab your shoes and get the fuck out of here, I’m not interested in hearing your nonsensical babel while you clown around pretending to do science, you don’t have a place at the table with everyone else who tries to do science seriously.
If you don’t learn anything else, at least learn intellectual honesty. You are not fooling anyone, we are not 6 year olds, you are just making a fool of yourself.

With trying to be serious about science in mind, let’s continue.

This is a great question, the original question for which this thread was set up. I do believe that the ark would be sufficient to hold a large number frogs if needed. Here is my belief. (yes, belief) God created frogs (among other animals) with DNA laden with possibilities within limits.

Then this conversation is over before it even started. I don’t care what you believe, you just asserted without evidence, without justification, A priori, the conclusions that you wanted without ever trying to find out if it is either true or not. All I have to do to counter this is to say, "well I don’t believe that, even if I did It isn't based on anything real". End of conversation.
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Quality control limits so to speak, that work in conjunction with natural selection to keep the gene code from mutating to a point where it would kill a species.

You are asking for it…. Why? Why would mutation kill a species? Isn’t mutations at an individual level, isn’t the “species” just the collection of individuals of a sufficiently close gene pool? And if for instance one organism were to develop a mutation that is detrimental to his life, wouldn’t that individual more than likely die of instead of propagating that mutation? And what stops the existence of beneficial mutations? If such a beneficial mutation were to occur, what would stop it from being spread through the population over successive generations?

If 25 frogs (or whatever number would be needed) were made with all the functions of the current 4,740 frogs, they could lose features as they dispersed. Imagine a "super frog" (which really wouldn't need to be all that super at all. But if it had all the features of 10 species that could deteriorated from it by loss of information not gain. (like blind animals found in caves)

If a frog with a collection of traits A gave an offspring with a collection of traits B which were “inferior” to those of A, what would mechanism would prevent a mutation from an organism with traits B to an organism with traits A?
And how can a super frog be both poisonous and colorful in order to make themselves visible to predators and well camouflaged in order to evade predators?
Or most important of all, why even assume that 10 species of frogs where responsible for producing 4740 species in 4000 years (which would be super evolution)? Why? What evidence is there to assert that this had happen at all? What reason could you possibly have other than the fact that you are forcefully retrofitting what you see with what you want to believe? How could you feed this nonsense and think that you are being serious about science?
Are we such fools as to believe that this is something else other than religiously motivated? Are you such a fool as to believe that this is not religiously motivated? That you are not running on the say so of people from a time long ago, with very little to know lodge of the working of the universe, who wrote quasi delirious stuff on a book, as did many others (that you reject) in that time?
So this is what it boils down to, first, be honest to me, or better, be honest to yourself, perhaps then you may start to understand why we find creationists no more sophisticated than the tribesman of Papua New Guinea.

Just one more for the road:

After a world wide flood, the ideal breeding grounds for frogs would be enormous. With many frogs laying from 200 - 2000 eggs a week (some hundreds of thousands from a single individual)

No actually, it would be the ideal conditions of getting every single organism on that ark extinct, because for everybody that does not live in the wiffle waffle land should know that heterotrophic organisms can not live in a waste land due to the simple fact that they need to ingest stuff in order to survive, stuff that wouldn't exist if there was such a thing as a world wide flood (not to mention the violations of the laws of physics required for such a flood). Ingest stuff that ultimately would boil down to an autotrophic organism somewhere down the food chain. And frogs are not exactly at the bottom of the food chain, the food that the frogs eat wouldn't have food themselves to survive.

 

[Rumraket]

Rapid variations and changes in species would occur due to climate changing needs.

That sure would be a lot of climate change in those 4000 years if it's supposed to produce ~1.2 new species of frog every year. Not to mention that's a lot of fortuitous mutation just so happening to create new frog species through deletions of genes from the superfrog, instead of just killing carriers.

Further stratifying of the species would happen as more and more predator populations would catch up to that of the frogs.

In which case the superfrog ancestor would fare better, having all the necessary adaptations to deal with any predator. Yet we still don't see any remotely supefrog-like frogs.

Frog population unlike human population could grow to hundreds of millions in ONE year. If we started with 25 frogs on Noah's ark, 4000 years ago and had an ideal frog breeding paradise (as a post flood world would be)

Eating what?

It is very reasonable to believe that those 25 could easily and realistically turn to billions of frogs in a mere hundred or so years. 3900 years of dna "loaded" frogs that would mutate and lose features during that time to come to a place of 4740 frogs today would be possible.

It defies everything we know about biology and genetics. Why'd the mutations constantly produce new frog species instead of just preferentially killing carriers? It seems extremely unlikely that mutations would just happen to delete large swathes of genes resulting in specific morphological change, instead of happening to delete or mutate key genes that affect the viability of the frog. And in 4000 years no less.

Since we observe genetic loss frequently and never (or to not start another rabbit trail, "almost never") observe genetic gain.

Define "genetic gain".

I believe it is far more probable that this falls further into the nature of science that we see today, instead fighting the balance of mutational probability as proposed by evolutionary biology.

It seems to me you're the one postulating the most outrageously unlikely mutational events if you think a small set of genetic superfrogs just so happened to suffer mutations through a few thousand years such that they resulted in viable, highly specifically adapted frogs, instead of just mostly producing dead or misdeveloped organisms.

Evolutionist problem number 1. 4,740 frogs from a rock 375 million to 4 billion years ago.

According to evolution, all frogs would have a last common ancestor which was itself a frog approximately 250 to 265 million years ago. We all know what the evolutionary mechanism is, we know what kinds of testable predictions it makes, we can confirm this by looking at DNA.

The origin of life isn't part of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution simply explains how life changes through the evolutionary process over time. But it doesn't say how life came to exist in the first place. We don't know how life originated. So that thing about "from rocks" is a bit of a red herring I hope you can agree.

I'm not asking how you think god created the first pair of frogs, we know you think it was some kind of divine intervention, which you obviously can't prove but have to take on faith. So it wouldn't be fair to ask me to tell you how the first life came to exist, I simply don't know. I hope we can agree to leave the question on the origin of life at that: You believe it was divine intervention and I just don't know, and get back to the post-flood evolution vs creationism question. Fair?

It looks like we agree on the common ancestor of frogs being a frog. =)

Yes, frogs did not evolve independently multiple times. As far as we know, they're a monophyletic group.

While you state that the origins of life are NOT a part of evolution, I would disagree.

Respectfully, that proposition isn't subject to disagreement. It is a fact that the origin of life isn't part of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is a theory that explains how already existing populations of organisms change through descent with modification due to mutation, genetic drift and natural selection, and tells us how the patterns observed in DNA, the fossil record and with comparative morphology, came about.

That is the purpose of the theory, to explain that. It has as a fundamental premise the existence of life. It does not account for it's origin and does not purport to. That's just how the science is, no amount of disagreement on your part is going to alter this elementary fact.

I think that's like saying you believe in mountains but not valleys. While I understand mountains and valleys are not the same thing obviously, I don't know how the one can be had without the other.

That analogy doesn't make any sense. Evolutionary theory simply assumes that some populations of organisms exist, it then explains how change happens over time. It doesn't HAVE to explain the origin of life to explain how life changes over generations. Just like I can give you an account of my life since I was born, without actually telling you or even knowing the specific circumstances of my birth.

We don't know how life originated, and if one day we figure it out, the answer isn't going to be the theory of evolution. It might be some kind of special physical and chemical process. But just to show how wrong that notion about the origin of life being a part of evolution is, let's play a little thought experiment.

Suppose for a moment that you're right and that god created the first life. He then subsequently let it evolve into extant bioderversity. Like Old-Earth creationists think. Would evolution then explain the origin of life, or even be required to? Of course not, god created it after all. Yet in this model evolution still explains how all life that now exists came to be from that first life form. But it does not explain how that first lifeform itself came to be, for that we need another process.

So we have a origin event, which can be:
A) Divine intervention

or

B) Natural physical or chemical event resulting in primitive cells

or

C) Designed by technologicall advanced aliens and seeded to Earth'

- then followed by the evolutionary process of descent with modification due to mutation, genetic drift and natural selection.

All of these are concievable possibilities, and they clearly show a demarcation between the origin event and the subsequent evolutionary process of diversification. Isn't it pretty obvious that evolution isn't part of that origin event?

I hope you find my answer regarding frog speciation to be a logical scientific alternative to your perspective.

Logical? Sure, it doesn't commit any immediately obvious logical fallacies. But I'm afraid that's about where the viability of your proposed alternative stops. It postulates some outrageously improbable events, for which we simple have zero evidence. And that's before we consider the ludicrous proposition about how you think the flood was generated by a fucking flash-freezing comet/ice-meteor. Where'd all the water go afterwards?

 

[fightofthejellyfish]

Okay, so your quotes from other creationists have a huge amount of flaw in them and I wouldn't for a second defend that argument.

Fair enough. But I do have to ask, then, if it doesn't seem peculiar to you that some of the most famous professional defenders of your position says such obviously, ludicrously false things?

Yes, it bothers me, but it would be foolish to try and argue from those positions. There are a lot of people out there who don't think. So, it is what it is. It also exists on both sides and what are we gonna do, right?

You shouldn't have got away with this assertion. Rumraket gave you a long list of prominent creationists saying obviously false things on just this narrow topic. You waved it away with "It also exists on both sides and what are we gonna do, right?"


Justice Frangipane,
Can you cite even a single instance of a professional defender of the theory of evolution saying anything obviously and ludicrously false?


Now in answer to your question: what are we gonna do? We can set up a system whereby people publish their work in public for all the world to see and criticise, a system where people's reputations and therefore careers depend on their intellectual integrity - on correcting any errors that occur and not repeating them. Creationists do not submit themselves to scrutiny and rarely if ever correct themselves when shown to be wrong. Instead they repeat the same obviously and ludicrously false statements again and again. There is no symmetry to the "sides" of this argument.

 

[Frenger]

With the world changing from a catastrophe the likes of the flood (which I believe was caused initially by an ice meteor strike which would account for how a mammoth could freeze before it rots internally)

I can't see any reference to this claim, but I can find rebuttals to the likely information you are using - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mammoths.html

While I am sceptical of your mammoth claim, I am even more sceptical that to back up a hypothesis of a global flood, you use just one example. A flimsy example at that.

For your global flood hypothesis to hold water (pun intended, thank you), you need to explain;

1 - Where did all the water go following God's change in attitude?
2 - How did a pensioner make a boat of that size from wood that when replicated today would buckle, leak and sink?
3 - How did he manage all the different and necessary ecologies and environments on board this ship?
4 - Why in the fossil record, do we see marine animals buried first? Let me elaborate.

Take trilobites, a group of marine arthropods which were all but wiped out in the mass extinction of the permian around 250 million years ago. We first saw these trilobites in the cambrian so they survived for around 300 million years, ever evolving.

Now, if we look at the geologic column, we see the first organisms that are buried, are marine creatures. So, God killed first the sea dwelling creatures by covering them in water. Does that make sense?

So, ignoring that for a second, let's look at the mechanism by which you can wipe out the trilobites. There are about 60 families of invertebrates that need to be wiped out. Just as a yard stick, human beings have never been able to wipe out even one family of invertebrates and we're pretty good at that kind of stuff. So, you need to be able to wipe out 60 families of invertebrates in one go, BUT, you need to be able to do it without destroying any of the habitat used by modern crustaceans. Because of course crabs, shrimps etc live in the same habitat that trilobites used to reside in all those years ago (however, you think they would have done at the same time). PLUS, you need to do all this, without drowning any other organism because of course they drown later.

That might be bad enough, but your flood also has to be so gentle, as to explain why the tracks of these trilobites have also been preserved.

So, to recap. The flood hypothesis has to explain why marine organisms drowned first, and you need to address the paradox of forces, in other words the flood has to be so powerful as to wipe out 60 families of marine invertebrates without upsetting the modern crustaceans who would have been in the same habitat, and it also had to be so gentle as to preserve said habitat as well as the tracks left by the trilobites during this topsy turvy event.

Good luck.

 

[Gnug215]

[...]

With the world changing from a catastrophe the likes of the flood (which I believe was caused initially by an ice meteor strike which would account for how a mammoth could freeze before it rots internally)

This right here. The ice meteor.

This sounds precisely like something Hovind is (in)famous for peddling.

Why, why, WHYYYY would you - or anyone - think that an ice meteor (presumably a HUGE MASSIVE one) would freeze anything when hitting the earth?

Is it your thinking that "earth + giant snowball = brrrr"?

Well, I can tell you that your thinking should instead be more like: "Newton is the baddest mother#%"&!@/ in the universe!"
(Points to anyone who gets that game reference.)

Try taking Newtons F=ma formula and do the calculations. And take note, the "F" does not stand for "Frosty".

I'm sorry for being so facetious and sarcastic here, but I need you to understand the baffling, headshakingly monumental error in judgment (and misunderstanding of fairly basic physics) here if you think that a massive mass of... mass hitting the earth at massive speed would do anything other than cause massive destruction with all that force and heat generated from the impact.

I believe someone has made the calculations for you in a YouTube video. (If anyone can find it, please share the link.)

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I believe someone has made the calculations for you in a YouTube video. (If anyone can find it, please share the link.)

​

 

[Justice Frangipane]

Sorry been busy. Hope to reply soon.

 

[Justice Frangipane]

I appreciate that you all appear to be very passionate about what you're talking about, but please remember, I'm not the enemy. I'm a guy with a different opinion than your own.

I'm going to rescind the super frog theory. You brought up some good points and after considering what you mentioned and doing some more research, I don't think that it is a good theory.

It is very possible that there are many "kinds" of frogs and that each of those basic kinds of frogs could have been on the ark. They didn't even have to be on the ark as the Bible states that the animals on the ark were from land and air that breathed through nostrils. Frogs, do both, breathe through absorption in the skin and nostrils (cutaneous respiration). Frogs can also survive a flood just fine. While the whole earth was flooded at one point, it doesn't mean the whole earth was flooded for the whole time. There could easily be parts of the earth that were just flooded during a few crest weeks. There is no reason to assume that some kinds of frogs wouldn't be able to survive on debris mats for a few weeks or months, as well as some that can live in the water just fine. Insects would also be able to survive a flood just fine, so the frogs would not have a short supply of food.

Man has "developed" 300+ varieties of dogs in just about 200 years. The same thing has happened with corn, apples, pigs etc. Climate does that for animals quickly. It's called adapting to the environment. That can only happen on info ALREADY IN the gene code. Cold weather "selects" for dogs with thick fur. It does not CREATE the fur or the gene for thick fur. The gene was there all along.

So just to make sure I've got this right: You don't think there's a problem with the theory of evolution as such, you just believe you've got an even better one?

You seem to imply that you would not have a problem with the possibility of current frog bioderversity evolving in ~260 million years?

I do think there are a variety of problems with the theory of evolution. Which we can get to when we are satisfied with this thread.

Justice Frangipane wrote:
Negative, harmful mutations abound in our world and would be supportive of this theory. http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Most_muta ... re_harmful
Compatible with, not supportive of. Important distinction.

Deleterious mutations are perfectly compatible with the theory of evolution too, so it can't really be said to be evidence of your theory. To do that, you have to be able to say much more specifically how many deleterious mutations should happen on your theory vs how many on the theory of evolution. That's the only way to see whether it supports one theory more than the other.

Yes, you could say it was evidence for both theories.

Justice Frangipane wrote:
After a world wide flood, the ideal breeding grounds for frogs would be enormous.

How do you know?

Why wouldn't a post flood world be ideal for frog breeding? plenty of water, lots of bugs, organic debris. I don't see this as an arguable point.

Why is there no single geological layer containing pretty much everything on the planet, from humans to dinosaurs?

Hydrologic sorting forbids certain things from happening (most of the time) I think there is likely a number of rare exceptions to what is typical. It's also important to note that the Bible says the the water came out of crust of the earth (subcutaneous water chambers) as well as from the sky. With water (likely extremely hot water) killing things on the bottom and land creatures drowning at the top its not going to be simple thing for them to all get to the same place. I think that the fault lines are likely locations for the water to have come out of the earth.

I don't think that the mountains we see today needed to be at their current heights during the flood.

Without land to disrupt the movement of tides, there would likely be a lot more hydrological sorting than we might have originally thought.

It's also important to remember that the buoyancy for different things will have an effect on where it ends up getting buried.

Poly strata fossils would suggest a flood and provide a HUGE problem for million year old strata. The lack of erosion marks between the layers is also a real issue.

Look up the "lost squadron" http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/22/plane-freed-from-a-glacier-sets-out-for-britain-again/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

http://creation.com/the-lost-squadron

 

[Isotelus]

I appreciate that you all appear to be very passionate about what you're talking about, but please remember, I'm not the enemy. I'm a guy with a different opinion than your own.
I'm going to rescind the super frog theory. You brought up some good points and after considering what you mentioned and doing some more research, I don't think that it is a good theory.

I don't think anyone here considers you specifically to be the enemy, certainly not after you've considered some points made and changed your opinion, at least on one matter. I can't speak for everyone, but I would guess we're all a little surprised at the nature of some of the arguments presented so far, namely the ice meteor.

Why wouldn't a post flood world be ideal for frog breeding? plenty of water, lots of bugs, organic debris. I don't see this as an arguable point.

Irrespective of our doubt that frog food would fare any better than anything else, perhaps because a post-flood world would also be ideal for fish that eat both insects and frogs, and pelagic seabirds could eat the frogs, and swifts that could eat the insects. Nothing about this is really arguable because it's all unsubstantiated speculation.

Hydrologic sorting forbids certain things from happening (most of the time) I think there is likely a number of rare exceptions to what is typical. It's also important to note that the Bible says the the water came out of crust of the earth (subcutaneous water chambers) as well as from the sky. With water (likely extremely hot water) killing things on the bottom and land creatures drowning at the top its not going to be simple thing for them to all get to the same place. I think that the fault lines are likely locations for the water to have come out of the earth.
I don't think that the mountains we see today needed to be at their current heights during the flood.
Without land to disrupt the movement of tides, there would likely be a lot more hydrological sorting than we might have originally thought.
It's also important to remember that the buoyancy for different things will have an effect on where it ends up getting buried.
Poly strata fossils would suggest a flood and provide a HUGE problem for million year old strata. The lack of erosion marks between the layers is also a real issue.

Look up the "lost squadron" http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/22/plane-freed-from-a-glacier-sets-out-for-britain-again/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

http://creation.com/the-lost-squadron

You’re opening up a whole new can of worms.

Hydrologic sorting is not evident in the fossil record. Please provide a specific example of where you think this has occurred, and what it forbids. How would you tell that the arrangement of fossil terrestrial and marine organisms are hydrologically sorted rather than resulting from different depositional environments? What evidence can you provide that faults acted as conduits for subcutaneous water (this refers to layers below the skin of animals; I’m assuming it’s a typo and you’re referring to subterranean chambers)? Is there some physical or chemical weathering along specific fault lines that can be directly linked to the catastrophic release of hydrothermal fluids?

I’ll assume that you’re referring to the postulation that mountains were raised from the seabed during the flood. Provide evidence that tectonic uplift via subducting plates and collision of foreign land masses is not a valid alternative explanation for mountain uplifting.

Poly-strata (aka polystrate) fossils imply rapid sedimentation, but note that this does not necessarily indicate a large flooding event. The types of fossils you are referring to typically occur in basins or subsiding regions such as floodplains and swamps. These types of environments experience a nearly constant influx of water flow (via rivers) carrying and depositing large loads of sediment, often in distinct layers. As a result, comparatively large sequences of layers can be formed relatively quickly geologically speaking, the important point being that we do not assume that in this particular case that one layer or several in conjunction represent a large geologic time period. The often touted polystrate trees are a perfect example of this. Poly strata/polystrate fossils are not terms used by geologists, and as a Geosciences major, I again urge you to research further into these topics, but this time go beyond the creationist sources.

Again, provide an example of where there is no evidence of erosion. Are we talking something like the Hermit shale and Coconino sandstone? Paraconformities are not issues when considering that erosional process will not occur uniformly across an exposed surface and often do show slight signs of erosion in certain areas. Differential erosion can come into play occasionally, as fossil remains will be preserved at the transition between two strata that were previously contained within sediments that are no longer present.

 

[Foxcanine1]

For the record, I'm new enough to the system that I haven't figured everything out yet.

Frogs can also survive a flood just fine. While the whole earth was flooded at one point, it doesn't mean the whole earth was flooded for the whole time. There could easily be parts of the earth that were just flooded during a few crest weeks. There is no reason to assume that some kinds of frogs wouldn't be able to survive on debris mats for a few weeks or months, as well as some that can live in the water just fine. Insects would also be able to survive a flood just fine, so the frogs would not have a short supply of food.

How high do you think the mountains were back then? Do you think that the Himalaya's, Mount McKinley, and others, got to their current elevations within the last 6,000 yrs or so? Frogs have a less efficient respiratory system then us and cannot survive in high elevation. So you would need a dramatic drop of those mountains in order for the flood to cover them and for the frogs to survive.

Man has "developed" 300+ varieties of dogs in just about 200 years. The same thing has happened with corn, apples, pigs etc. Climate does that for animals quickly. It's called adapting to the environment. That can only happen on info ALREADY IN the gene code. Cold weather "selects" for dogs with thick fur. It does not CREATE the fur or the gene for thick fur. The gene was there all along.

We've had dogs for about 15,000 years. I'm not sure were your getting the 300+ in 200yrs figure. Also, dogs are descendants of wolves, which among other things do not rely on a starch diet, whereas dogs do. Meaning that dogs process starch much more efficiently (1). Was this characteristic there in wolves all along but never expressed?

Why wouldn't a post flood world be ideal for frog breeding? plenty of water, lots of bugs, organic debris. I don't see this as an arguable point.

Except that since, at the very least, the majority of life, including plants, would have died off this would result in a dramatic drop in the oxygen level resulting in the death of the frogs. Who have a less efficient respiratory system.


1. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2013/01/24/adaptation-to-starchy-diet-was-key-to-dog-domestication/

 

[DutchLiam84]

Frogs have a less efficient respiratory system then us and cannot survive in high elevation. So you would need a dramatic drop of those mountains in order for the flood to cover them and for the frogs to survive.

Saggy skinned frogs live on altitudes as high as 2 km. Not exactly as high as Mt. Everest but still pretty high.

 

[Foxcanine1]

Frogs have a less efficient respiratory system then us and cannot survive in high elevation. So you would need a dramatic drop of those mountains in order for the flood to cover them and for the frogs to survive.

Saggy skinned frogs live on altitudes as high as 2 km. Not exactly as high as Mt. Everest but still pretty high.

That's pretty cool. I was wrong then. Still, you would have to propose that every frog had similar characteristics that allowed them to survive at such elevations. As you mentioned as well, this is a far cry from Mr. Everest. Mainly I want to know is how high he thinks the mountains were back then and how they got to there current elevation.
Also, not to get nit picky but it's 12,500 ft. Not 2km.

 

[DutchLiam84]

Damn, you're right, that's almost 4 km. I remember seeing it on a Nick Baker's Weird Creatures episode, been a while.

 

[fightofthejellyfish]

Man has "developed" 300+ varieties of dogs in just about 200 years. The same thing has happened with corn, apples, pigs etc. Climate does that for animals quickly. It's called adapting to the environment. That can only happen on info ALREADY IN the gene code. Cold weather "selects" for dogs with thick fur. It does not CREATE the fur or the gene for thick fur. The gene was there all along.

No that doesn't work in your scenario. Each animal carries only two copies of a gene, one it got from its mother and one from its father which may well be different (different versions of a gene are called alleles). The way we breed animals is by artificially selecting out a set of alleles from a gene pool not a single "gene code" (genome). In a healthy population there is lots of variation between individuals - lots of alleles to choose from. But if you reduce a population to just two individuals there is at most four versions of each gene available - not much to select from for adapting to the environment.

This is another can of worms you've opened up, but you've got enough on your plate.

 

[Rumraket]

Hello Justice, thank you for your reply.

I'm positively surprised to see you have taken some criticisms on board and show a willingness to reconsider key aspects of your position. That shows some intellectual maturity and guts. I will be back with a reply within a day. Thank you for your open engagement so far.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Man has "developed" 300+ varieties of dogs in just about 200 years. The same thing has happened with corn, apples, pigs etc. Climate does that for animals quickly. It's called adapting to the environment.

That is also called evolution.

That can only happen on info ALREADY IN the gene code. Cold weather "selects" for dogs with thick fur. It does not CREATE the fur or the gene for thick fur. The gene was there all along.

Everyone seems to be missing a key point. Justice Frangipane is still claiming that beneficial mutations cannot happen, even though AronRa corrected him on this point. Justice Frangipane, read up on mutations, because your ignorance is not an argument.

Claim CB100 and Claim CB101.

 

[Foxcanine1]

Man has "developed" 300+ varieties of dogs in just about 200 years. The same thing has happened with corn, apples, pigs etc. Climate does that for animals quickly. It's called adapting to the environment.

That is also called evolution.

That can only happen on info ALREADY IN the gene code. Cold weather "selects" for dogs with thick fur. It does not CREATE the fur or the gene for thick fur. The gene was there all along.

Everyone seems to be missing a key point. Justice Frangipane is still claiming that beneficial mutations cannot happen, even though AronRa corrected him on this point. Justice Frangipane, read up on mutations, because your ignorance is not an argument.

Claim CB100 and Claim CB101.

That was technically the point I was trying to get at with the wolves.

 

[Justice Frangipane]

Oh my goodness, yes, SUBTERRANEAN water chambers, not subcutaneous. That's what I get for writing late at night. =)

I want to address a little bit the ice meteor part of the theory and some of the stuff that people have brought up.

I do believe in something called the "canopy theory". I have no idea what the "evolutionists" viewpoint is on this theory, but I'll do my best to answer questions about it. I think its a very interesting theory to say the least.

The theory is that there was a canopy of water (or ice) above the atmosphere. Water floats just fine in our current atmosphere and this layer of water/ice wouldn't have to be very thick to accomplish a number of important functions.
1. It would filter out UV light and greatly decrease the amount of radiation getting into the atmosphere.
2. It would help pressurize the atmosphere
3. It would create a type of greenhouse effect for plant growth.

I predict based off this theory that we would find animals that could not breathe under the atmospheres current pressure levels.
http://www.livescience.com/18314-dinosaurs-grew-huge.html (The whole theory that dinosaurs have "bird like" lungs has been developed to solve the problem of lung efficiency for dinosaurs)
I predict that we would find air trapped in substances with increased oxygen levels.
http://www.uibk.ac.at/public-relations/presse/archiv/2013/466/
I predict that we would find animals that currently would not be able to sustain flight under the atmospheres current pressure levels.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3352699/Pterodactyls-were-too-heavy-to-fly-scientist-claims.html
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/49746642/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/pterodactyl-was-so-big-it-couldnt-fly-scientist-claims/#.UwZLLvldWSo
I predict that with a lack of UV and other radiation, increase in oxygen and higher air pressure that creatures would live longer and grow larger.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-radical_theory_of_aging
http://www.info-archive.com/oxywoundhealing.htm
I predict that if humans could age to hundreds of years old that we would find unique features consistent with very old human growth patterns.
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/004788.html
I predict that we would find these larger animals and older humans
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/11/131104-giant-platypus-evolution-science-animals-paleontology/
http://www.livescience.com/20395-smart-car-sized-turtle-roamed-colombia.html
http://www.fossil-treasures-of-florida.com/giant-beaver.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal


As far as the "meteor hitting the earth" youtube video, He is wrong on a few points. When something breaks apart and is traveling through a resistive force (like the ozone) an increase in surface area will decrease the velocity and impact of that object immensely. He stated that even if the meteor broke apart it would hit the earth with exactly the same force. This is not true. If a meteor hit the earth (possibly causing the tilt of the earth) yes, the local impact of that strike would cause heat in that specific area. But it doesn't mean that would be the ONLY effect of the impact. When an object breaks apart in space it is not "free" from gravitational forces. The video assumes that every broken off part of an ice meteor would be traveling at exactly the same rate. This also is not true. When an object breaks apart (due to impact with other objects or due to structural instability) the pieces that fall off do not travel faster then the object they fall from. (perhaps this can happen, but would be exceedingly rare) If fragments of ice where broken off from a meteor, they could be captured by earths gravity and pulled into the atmosphere without being converted into just heat. Super cold ice (like what we would expect to find on a meteor) is magnetic. This would tend to cause the ice to gravitate towards the north and south poles. I am NOT saying that all the ice there if from a meteor, rather that a deposit of super cold ice could, after being attracted to the poles magnetically, snow down on the mammoths and cause them to freeze before rotting.

The mammoth freezing portion of the theory is almost completely irrelevant. Makes almost no difference in the theory, but is a problem that is in need of explanation.