At 09:04 PM 11/9/97 -0600, Karen G. Jensen wrote:
>>The data supporting this idea comes from paleontology. We don't have to go
>>very far back into the past before we find NO living animals. Here are the
>>species living in each of the past. Living forms were all different in the
>>past. They changed.
>>Recent 4631(including species which went extinct in historical times)
>>The two living species found in the Miocene are the carnivore Callorhinus
>>ursinus and the bat, Rhinolophus ferrum-equinum.
>Thank you for this list. I see below that these are all mammals.
>I assume that by "no living animals" you mean "no extant species".
Actually I meant no extant mammalian species.
>This is exactly what would be expected if the Miocene to Recent fossil
>record represents speciation since the Flood. With all that environmental
>change, much "descent with modification", through "survival of the fittest"
>in each area would be necessary. This is reality in our fallen ecology.
So in other words you do believe in evolution. In fact you believe evolution
is much more rapid than even the evolutionists do. You are having all this
change all these speciations occur in about 5,000 years. Since there are
4280 living species, which don't appear as fossils, and thus did not live in
the preflood world, this means you believe that approximately 1 species
evolved per year over the past 5000 years. But since most of these species
of were in existence and unchanged 2000 years ago, (from historical
records), this means that all this evolution must have occured in only 3000
years ago. But at least for falcons, crocodiles, cats, lions, leopards,
dogs, jackals etc we know that they were in existence unchanged in 3000 B.C.
when the Egyptian civilization was founded. Thus all this evolution must
have occurred prior to that. Why did all this very rapid speciation cease
for the past 3000 years. I mean evolution was going great guns, creating
species after species of horse, canid etc and now during our life time I
don't get to see this happen as quickly any more.
Doesn't this seem inconsistent to you?
>>So while we may bump into limits over a 1000 year period, it might not be
>>there if given more time.
>On the other hand, if the stress of that much change pushed the limits of
>genetic versatility in each of the kinds, they might become progressively
>less able to change any more, and there would be many extinctions.
But I thought you had said that 4 generation was about the limit to any
change that could occur. Remember you have to have all horse kind evolve
from a single horse kind and that required major chromosomal mutations.
Burchell's zebras have 44 chromosomes, some 45 chromosomes due to a
chromosome that brokein two.
Most donkeys have 62 chromosomes but one fertile female was found with 63
Persian onagers can have 55 or 56 chromosomes;
kulans can have 54 or 55; and
kiangs can have 55 or 56.
Equus Caballos 64 chromosomes
Przewalski's horse has 66 chromosomes
Look at what you need to do with the Canids evolution:
chromosomes canidae family
Wolf-like canids common name geographic range 2n
small (5-10 kg
Canis aureus Golden jackal Old World 78
Canis adustus Side-striped jackal SubSahara Africa 78
Canis mesomelas Black-backed jackal SubSahara Africa 78
Large (12-30 kg)
Canis simensis Simien jackal Ethiopia 78
Canis lupus Gray wolf Holarctic 78
Canis latrans Coyote North America 78
Canis rufus Red wolf Southern U.S. 78
Canis alpinus Dhole Asia 78
Lycaon pictus African Wild Dog Subsaharan africa 78
South American Canids
Speothos venaticus Bushdog Ne S. America 74
Lycalopex vetulus Hoary fox Ne S. America 74
Cerdocyon thous Crab-eating fox Ne S. America 74
Chrysocyon brachyurus Manes wolf Ne S. America 76
Red fox-like canids
Vulpes velox Kit fox Western U.S. 50
Vulpes vulpes Red fox Old and new world 36
Vulpes chama Cape fox Southern Africa not given
Alopex lagopus Arctic fox Holarctic 50
Fennecus zerda Fennec fox Sahara 64
Otocyon megalotis Bat-eared fox Subsaharan Africa 72
Uocyon cinereoargenteus Gray fox North America 66
Nycteruetes procyonoides Raccon dog Japan, China 42
Robert K. Wayne, "Molecular evolution of the dog family," TRENDS IN GENETICS,
9:6,June 1993, p 219
What you are proposing is that all this chromosomal rearrangement took place
almost instantaneously after the flood. We know most of the foxes, jackals,
dogs and wolves were intact during the Egyptian Dynasties. But strangely, it
doesn't happen as rapidly anymore. What happened?
>>The number of extinct species found in the various epochs of the Tertiary are:
>I find this fascinating. Thank you, again! What is the reference?
Donald E. Savage and Donald E. Russell, Mammalian Paleofaunas of the World.
I had to compile the information
>Look at the array of numbers there -- the most extinctions in the Miocene,
>with fewer on each side (the Oligocene is low because it is "short" (a
>thinner sequence) (Gk. oligo = little or few) and the Eocene is higher
>because it is "long" (thicker sequences).
That is not the etymology of Oligocene and Eocene. Oligo means few but it
meant few living species of shellfish. Eo means "dawn"
>>From the paleobotanical viewpoint, the Miocene is the period when the
>extreme diversity of the Eocene (which could be interpreted as massive
>after the floodwaters receded) starts to tend toward the present
>biogeography, with what I call "differential survival" (some plant kinds
>dying out in one area but surviving in another, while others survive and
>speciate in other areas...).
>With the Pliocene cooling and drying there was the spread of grasslands
>which profoundly affected the speciation of ungulates, etc., and after that
>there was less (but still some) extinction of vertebrates.
How many years long do you envision each of the periods to be?
>>The average species is only found in one of these epochs. This implies that
>>the fauna almost entirely turns over with the passing of each epoch. This
>>is another difficulty for the global flood--explaining why different forms
>>are deposited in the various layers, inspite of the fact that most
>>represented in each epoch.
>In the Tertiary, I expect a lot of "turnover", as I noted above. Ernst
>Mayr's conditions for optimum speciation (small population size, low
>predation, low competition, open niches, etc.) would be exactly fulfilled
>in the immediate postflood environment.
But we don't find small population sizes in many of the species. We find
lots of fossils.
>>Doesn't this mean that life has changed? I see only two possibilities.
>>Evolution or progressive creation that mimics the pattern of evolution
>Sure, life has changed. But there are more than those two possibilites.
I guess one could include rapid, young-earth approved evolution which we
rename as microevolution.
Foundation, Fall and Flood