Re: predictions of YEC hypothesis

From: bivalve (
Date: Wed Oct 31 2001 - 15:56:52 EST

  • Next message: bivalve: "Another Biblical archaeologist????"

    >AiG assumes only land animals were brought onto the ark. Furthermore they assume these were represented by a sample number of 2 for each kind (more for clean but not significantly more for my question). Then they assume rapid radiation of those animals into many tens if not hundreds of species.
    >This raises the following question in my mind:
    >Is there not a specific testable genetic hypothesis that falls out of this scenarion. Should there not be a discernable difference between the genetics of land animals and all othere organisms but especially between other animals (or even mamals such as whales, seals)?<

    DC: Yes, this should produce an obvious bottleneck with the relevant genetic consequences. It also means that the DNA (especially non-recombining sequences) should be readily traced back to one or two copies in the relatively recent past, ala mitochondrial Eve. The patterns should be similar for many different kinds of organisms, although molecular clock assumptions are always problematic.

    There could be similar bottlenecks in the populations of aquatic animals, if the Flood killed most of them as well. However, the failure to find widespread evidence for population bottlenecks, plausibly dating from the same time, should be seen as problematic for AiG.

    Exactly which animals were on the ark, and how those not on board survived the wild events purportedly going on outside, is not too clear in the YEC explanations that I have seen. Invertebrates seem generally ignored.

    >Basic genetics to me would suggest that the non-bottlenecked animals would have had much much greater potential for rapid diversification and since they presumably would be in the same conditions after the flood the YEC model would predict vastly greater radiations among these organisms than among Ark-bound animals. <

    DC: The extreme of only a few individuals does make the genetic viability of the population questionable. On the other hand, small populations are good for allowing new genes to spread and for limiting the pressure of competition, allowing more suboptimal forms to survive.

        Dr. David Campbell
        Old Seashells
        46860 Hilton Dr #1113
        Lexington Park MD 20653 USA

    That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droigate Spa

    Sent via the WebMail system at


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 31 2001 - 15:45:12 EST