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

To: mlc9852
Let's say, liberally, 20,0000 "kinds" on the ark. Let's say, liberally, 20,000 years since the flood. Let's say, conservatively, 3 million species extant. That's 2.8 million divided by 20K = 140 new species evolving every year on average (but clearly most of them appearing in the early portion of that time, at maybe ten times that rate, as early writings and archaeological evidence give no indication of vastly reduced biological diversity thousands of years ago). Or take 3,000,000/20,000 giving us each "kind" splitting on average 150 times to produce extant species.

How do two individuals possess the genetic variation, without evolution (or even with evolution in such brief time time spans!), to produce 150 species, and only on average mind you, and many with distinct and peculiar adaptations, in a few thousand, or even an initial one or two thousand, years!?

It out does anything the most wildly liberal evolutionist would ever propose by orders of magnitude. Evolution maybe produces 1 or 2 or maybe, in a good year, a few dozen new species a year (usually maintaining a steady state with extinctions). Additionally those new species are very similar to the immediately preceding types. They may have a bigger bill, or a couple extra teeth, or slightly longer incisors, or a larger or smaller body size, or different coloration, or a different call, a different courtship dance, or some subtle variation in behavior allowing them to survive in a slightly different ecological niche. But your creationistic non-evolution-evolution produces species adapted to radically new, and often very harsh, environments almost instantaneously.

You're right. It's not "evolution". It's "hypervolution".

Consider JUST the amazing adaptations of deep sea fishes. There is virtually no light, so many species produce their own by bioluminescence. The protein density is usually extremely low (in the deep oceans but above the sea bottom, in the "mesopelagic" zones) so many species have to get by with a half to a third of the protein content in their muscles compared to "normal" oceanic fishes.

And of course there's the incredible pressure: 400 times atmospheric pressure at 4,000 feet deep. Can you imagine how difficult it is to inflate a swim bladder, and keep it inflated, at that depth? Especially when your muscles are much weaker (see above) than those of normal fish. Just this feature alone would have had to have been radically redesigned (simultaneously in multiple "kinds") with respect to pre-flood fishes which never experienced such pressures.

And that's not the half of it. Not even a fraction of it. For instance the whole biochemistry has to be different, or specially adapted and enhanced. These extreme pressures force water molecules to stay tightly bound to charged molecules. This interferes with crucial binding events in cells, for instance enzymes binding to energy-yielding molecules like ATP.

And all this had to "evolve" (without evolution!) hundreds of times in just the few thousand years since the flood.

179 posted on 01/23/2006 8:39:49 PM PST by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies ]


To: Stultis

So do you believe in evolution or not? It's hard to tell from your post.


185 posted on 01/24/2006 2:42:28 AM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies ]

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