How did humanity achieve its current level of genetic diversity? As a matter of fact, humanity was extremely diverse at about 1 AD. How did we become so genetically divergent in just 2400 years? Did god allow for mutation and natural selection for humanity for this short period of time? Why have we not become more diverse over the last 2000 years? Why are we not seeing the same high levels of mutation today?
2007-09-15 02:16:56 · 13 answers · asked by That Guy 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
My dearest “Evolution is…”: How did those 4 couples lead to such a diverse population today? How do we have people in such a myriad of colors and flavors, given only 4 starting couples and such a short time span? Surely there must have been some mutations or something, wouldn't you agree?
2007-09-15 02:34:51 · update #1
If by the question, you are referring to the idea that the Ark only carried 8 people and so why do we have diversity as in race?
The reason is because people do not understand what they read. First, 7 of every
clean animal was taken, and 2 of every unclean or scavenger animal. In addition to these, Noah was also told to take aboard the Ark two of every flesh, or etnos - that means man and woman of every race. When the Scriptures state that there were "8 living souls", you have to understand that it means 8 ADAMIC peoples; if you aren't in Christ, you do not have life (eternal) and therefore the phrase
"8 living souls" - these were those of the
lineage that eventually Christ would come through; but, there were lots of other people on the Ark.
Also, I would be amiss if I didn't mention that most scholars believe the flood to have come upon the world OF THE UNGODLY, as written - but these nephillim and geba were only in one geographical location, so to have flooded their world would not have
been necessary to flood the entire Earth.
Scientific studies concur with this.
Have you ever heard someone use a saying like this:
"I met a girl last night and she totally rocked my world" or "she means the world to me".
I agree with 99% who believe the flood to have only come to one location - the one location where it was necessary to flood to rid the lands of the influx of those hybrids.
2007-09-15 02:34:29 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Nay, I wouln't accept that it wouuld've happes during the Plaeitossen nor on Jurassisc era either, but the exact time of occurence could might have happen much earlier in the Human History, certainly long after accended on to the surface of the Earth.
Time discrepancies always been the black cat on the COTS, wouldn't it .t. ?
2007-09-15 23:08:39 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
because dinosaurs were a result of evolution that occurred after the flood.As anyone can see.A mammoth was just an elephant w/ hair due to a colder climate.And w/ larger tusks due to a larger body.But, they are clearly the same animal.Dinosaurs on the other hand.They could be identified as animals we have today.But, alot of them evolved radically over time.It's a case of-different time/different place.
2016-05-20 01:17:07 · answer #3 · answered by tracy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What about the unbroken occupation of Australia by the Aborigines for the last 60,000 years? Were the originals destroyed and then later replaced by an exact copy of their culture?
A simple examination of the amount of hydrogen in the earth's atmosphere will show that there is not enough to create the water needed.
Mt Arrat, is a fairly high mountain,and to cover it to the point that the ark could eventually land on it's top, would essentially imply a global flood.
2007-09-15 02:27:37 · answer #4 · answered by Pirate AM™ 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I'd be surprised if any of the fundie young earther's out there even understand this question. If you get a lot of "God's mysterious ways" answers, I'd consider that evidence.
Although, just to nit pick a little, if the Biblical Flood happened in 2400 B.C., then that would have been 4400 years ago...not that it makes all that much difference, since the first truly human form arose about 50,000 years ago; in other words, the difference between 2400 and 4400 years is a lot less statistically significant than the difference between 2400 and 50,000 years.
Edit: Ha...you said humans in a myriad of flavors. What's your favorite? Mine's butter pecan...
2007-09-15 02:26:34 · answer #5 · answered by the_way_of_the_turtle 6 · 2⤊ 4⤋
There is no geological evidence of a world flood, and many scientists say ther is not nearly enough water to submerge the tallest mountains as Genesis says. Isaac Asimov figured it would take about 3.5 times as much water as there is on Earth to do what is said. the whole tale is just a copy of the Sumerian one of Utnapishtim and a deluge. A logical man can find dozens of errors in the tale of Noah.
2007-09-15 02:26:34 · answer #6 · answered by miyuki & kyojin 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Yeah, how did we get all the races of the world from... NOAH and his family?
A little suspect, don't you think? Especially since it's impossible for those kind of mutations to occur in only a few thousand years. Millions POSSIBLY, but not a few thousand.
2007-09-15 02:22:09 · answer #7 · answered by spike_is_my_evil_vampire 4 · 5⤊ 4⤋
How the heck did the Egyptians build the pyramids a few hundred years before that? They did have records.
2007-09-15 02:23:01 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
I think Noah's flood covered the "known world" (erets just means "the ground") at around 9600 B.C. and archeology will back me up.
2007-09-15 02:26:28 · answer #9 · answered by Dennis W 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
There were 8 people on the Ark.
4 couples all together.the flood took place about 4400 years ago.
So what is the problem?
2007-09-15 02:29:40 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 6⤋