Noah, his children, and humanity today.

[The Peon]

Hello SFN community. Long time no post. I have been debating with a creationist friend about the account in the Bible about Noah. I am trying to explain to him that it is impossible that a single man and his wife, 4,500 years ago could have produced the genetic variety and amount of people on this planet today. Am I correct? Would it be even possible for a single family with 3 children 4,500 years ago to produce the over 20 billion (estimated) people who have lived since that time and also the variety in racial features, cultural customs etc?

 

I know it is most likely improbable, but I want to know is it even genetically possible?

Edited July 11, 2008 by The Peon

[insane_alien]

theres a java simulation on talk.origins somewhere.

 

IIRC it was very generous with breeding ages and lifetimes and assumed that all the women were constantly pregnant from a very young age and it still fell short of the 6billion alive today mark. and way more than half of them were small kids.leaving only around 1 billion adults to do work.

[The Peon]

theres a java simulation on talk.origins somewhere.

 

IIRC it was very generous with breeding ages and lifetimes and assumed that all the women were constantly pregnant from a very young age and it still fell short of the 6billion alive today mark. and way more than half of them were small kids.leaving only around 1 billion adults to do work.

 

I am more interested in the possibility of the genetic variety we see today, such as Mongoloid, Negroid and Caucasoid occuring in only 4,500 years of breeding. Is such a genetic variety even possible in such a "short" amount of time and generations?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I recall reading somewhere that the diversity of certain alleles could not arise over such a short time from limited genetic diversity, but I can't find the article right now. I'll see if I can dig that up.

[swansont]

I am more interested in the possibility of the genetic variety we see today, such as Mongoloid, Negroid and Caucasoid occuring in only 4,500 years of breeding. Is such a genetic variety even possible in such a "short" amount of time and generations?

 

Not if coupled with the common creationist argument that evolution can't explain diversity because all/most mutations are harmful, and consistent with observed mutation rates. There are genes with many alleles — HLA-B gene has 59.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16456786

[Pangloss]

Maybe the ark was radioactive.

[The Peon]

OK So basically there is no way genetically that in 4,500 years all the races of the Earth could have evolved from a single human family? My argument was sound? Or is it even a remote possibility?

[Phi for All]

I am more interested in the possibility of the genetic variety we see today, such as Mongoloid, Negroid and Caucasoid occuring in only 4,500 years of breeding. Is such a genetic variety even possible in such a "short" amount of time and generations?

How successful have you been with your friend in bringing up scientific facts to argue against his omnipotent God? One could argue that even if the wives of Ham, Shem and Japeth were somehow from other races (which isn't mentioned in the Bible), it would still not be enough to create so many different races, especially with so many today having "pure bloodlines" (don't jump on me, this is not scientific thinking, but a creationist might understand it). Above all, you need to avoid giving your friend the opportunity to end the discussion by playing the omnipotence card.

 

I haven't found much success bringing out scientific facts to argue with someone who is more than willing to dismiss all of science in favor of a deity who can defy physical laws with a thought. Maybe you can get better traction arguing that Noah was a terrible father who used black magic on his son when Ham saw Dad's genitals after Noah had passed out drunk in his tent (or... not).

 

Since Noah lived to be 950 years old and only had three sons, it can be assumed that fertility was not increased with longevity. Ham only had four sons in his lifetime so this is further proof that the generations of the time were not supernaturally prolific (in fact, just the opposite; wouldn't you expect more children in a life of almost a millennium? The average Catholic family outstrips this achievement in mere decades).

[foodchain]

Hello SFN community. Long time no post. I have been debating with a creationist friend about the account in the Bible about Noah. I am trying to explain to him that it is impossible that a single man and his wife, 4,500 years ago could have produced the genetic variety and amount of people on this planet today. Am I correct? Would it be even possible for a single family with 3 children 4,500 years ago to produce the over 20 billion (estimated) people who have lived since that time and also the variety in racial features, cultural customs etc?

 

I know it is most likely improbable, but I want to know is it even genetically possible?

 

 

 

I would also want to look at genetic recombination which occurs naturally. Its a source of variance, plus you have epigenetics plus even more influential factors. Bottlenecks I think are also evident in our species history, but with that one being much larger then to proposed idea of speciation I would tend to think that seeing such would be all that easier.

 

I mean when you ask such questions, do you mean for instance an “ideal” molecular clock? I could get confused and wonder if you are asking about drift for instance, along with fitness peaks and phenotypes, so is it basically wondering if mutation is the topic at hand.

[The Peon]

How successful have you been with your friend in bringing up scientific facts to argue against his omnipotent God? One could argue that even if the wives of Ham, Shem and Japeth were somehow from other races (which isn't mentioned in the Bible), it would still not be enough to create so many different races, especially with so many today having "pure bloodlines" (don't jump on me, this is not scientific thinking, but a creationist might understand it). Above all, you need to avoid giving your friend the opportunity to end the discussion by playing the omnipotence card.

 

I haven't found much success bringing out scientific facts to argue with someone who is more than willing to dismiss all of science in favor of a deity who can defy physical laws with a thought. Maybe you can get better traction arguing that Noah was a terrible father who used black magic on his son when Ham saw Dad's genitals after Noah had passed out drunk in his tent (or... not).

 

Since Noah lived to be 950 years old and only had three sons, it can be assumed that fertility was not increased with longevity. Ham only had four sons in his lifetime so this is further proof that the generations of the time were not supernaturally prolific (in fact, just the opposite; wouldn't you expect more children in a life of almost a millennium? The average Catholic family outstrips this achievement in mere decades).

 

I am more concerned with the possibility that I am using a flawed argument than convincing him otherwise. I found that most creationists have to learn the truth on their own because it's hard to force someone to see that their beliefs are dilusional. My concern after the fact was that it is possible that the races of humanity could have arisen from a single family in a matter of 4,500 years.

 

I would also want to look at genetic recombination which occurs naturally. Its a source of variance, plus you have epigenetics plus even more influential factors. Bottlenecks I think are also evident in our species history, but with that one being much larger then to proposed idea of speciation I would tend to think that seeing such would be all that easier.

 

I mean when you ask such questions, do you mean for instance an “ideal” molecular clock? I could get confused and wonder if you are asking about drift for instance, along with fitness peaks and phenotypes, so is it basically wondering if mutation is the topic at hand.

 

OK I don't get all the lingo in this message, excuse me I am not the brightest. But my whole question in a nutshell is if under any circumstances could a single family 4,500 years ago produce all the variety of mankind you see today?

[Phi for All]

But my whole question in a nutshell is if under any circumstances could a single family 4,500 years ago produce all the variety of mankind you see today?

Absolutely NOT, not under any natural circumstances.

[foodchain]

OK I don't get all the lingo in this message, excuse me I am not the brightest. But my whole question in a nutshell is if under any circumstances could a single family 4,500 years ago produce all the variety of mankind you see today?

 

 

Oh, sorry, I don’t know what you know.

 

Basically I just did not understand what you are trying to target, if its humans as is currently from a biological perspective then I would think the answer is no, 1 it did not occur that way from what is understood and commonly in print on the subject and secondly I don’t think modern theory could support such, though I don’t know if it permanently selects against the occurring of such. Then again I seriously don’t know everything, so you might want to check it out some more.

[CDarwin]

OK So basically there is no way genetically that in 4,500 years all the races of the Earth could have evolved from a single human family? My argument was sound? Or is it even a remote possibility?

 

Of course we're not just talking about humans. All the animals of the earth would have to have multiplied to their present numbers and diversity from whatever time the Flood happed until now. And the time span from Flood to the first signs of global civilizations would have to be pretty narrow, too. Really none of the archaeological record works with a global flood. I don't think Creationists really realize how much of science their ideas really reject. Every scrap of evidence we have on the emergence of agriculture, of the state, of cities and the settlement of the continents has to be completely wrong. Basically all of prehistoric archeology is horse hockey, and all the major events in human history happened in ridiculously short spans of time.

 

By the way, human 'races' are principally cultural constructs. They don't have much biological meaning as given. That Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, Australoid listing you give is more than a bit outdated and has some serious flaws. Not on topic, though.

Edited July 11, 2008 by CDarwin

[The Peon]

Of course we're not just talking about humans. All the animals of the earth would have to have multiplied to their present numbers and diversity from whatever time the Flood happed until now. And the time span from Flood to the first signs of global civilizations would have to be pretty narrow, too. Really none of the archaeological record works with a global flood. I don't think Creationists really realize how much of science their ideas really reject. Every scrap of evidence we have on the emergence of agriculture, of the state, of cities and the settlement of the continents has to be completely wrong. Basically all of prehistoric archeology is horse hockey, and all the major events in human history happened in ridiculously short spans of time.

 

By the way, human 'races' are principally cultural constructs. They don't have much biological meaning as given. That Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, Australoid listing you give is more than a bit outdated and has some serious flaws. Not on topic, though.

 

 

Excellent points! Using the terms I used was to point out the distinct differences in cranium shape, and of course visual features (such as dark or lighter skin, slanted or round eyes etc).

[CDarwin]

Using the terms I used was to point out the distinct differences in cranium shape, and of course visual features (such as dark or lighter skin, slanted or round eyes etc).

 

All of them which we have decided culturally were important distinguishers as race. Basically, human variation exists on a continuum, and we decide arbitrarily where to draw lines on that continuum to define "races." There is invariably more variation within a race than between races.

 

This is one of those things that gets anthropologists going. I guess it's collective guilt for having been the field at the forefront of scientific racism for quite a few years.

[ajb]

Absolutely NOT, not under any natural circumstances.

 

Natural is the word.

 

Surly, a simple creationist response to that will be "supernatural", thus you can never "disprove" that one family did not populate the Earth.

[The Peon]

Natural is the word.

 

Surly, a simple creationist response to that will be "supernatural", thus you can never "disprove" that one family did not populate the Earth.

 

But the Judeo-Christian God is a diety of law. Thus he established the laws of genetics and hence if he somehow twisted them to allow for all the races and people today in a mere few centurys he is a law breaker. A better question is, why even do that in the first place? Is having all these different races that important that he would break his own rules?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I'm fairly certain that He already broke the rules when He did stuff like the seven plagues of Egypt. Breaking His own laws isn't a problem here.

[CDarwin]

I'm fairly certain that He already broke the rules when He did stuff like the seven plagues of Egypt. Breaking His own laws isn't a problem here.

 

How did that break any Law?

[Deja Vu]

Natural is the word.

 

Surly, a simple creationist response to that will be "supernatural", thus you can never "disprove" that one family did not populate the Earth.

 

 

Yes, it's always so much easier when God just simply does everything for us, isn't it? What strikes me as interesting about this belief is the fact that the creationists are unwilling to just let God do all the damning of the unbelievers for them too

Edited July 12, 2008 by Deja Vu

[Kyrisch]

What I find especially ironic is that the only way this had any chance of occurring at all is if the propogation of genetic diversity was MUCH MORE than even what the theory of evolution posits, which they will denounce as an impossibility in the very next breath.

[mooeypoo]

A few good points to get from the story:

 

1. Noah was not a saint. At all.
   Genesis 6:6-9 And the LORD said: 'I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and creeping thing, and fowl of the air; for it repenteth Me that I have made them.' But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. {P} These are the generations of Noah. Noah was in his generations a man righteous and whole-hearted; Noah walked with God.
   And Genesis 7:1 And the LORD said unto Noah: 'Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before Me in this generation.
    
   Notice: God (and the biblical author) states Noah was a righteous "In his generation" -- there's a point to why that "in his generation" is connected, always, to the mentioning of Noah as a righteous man.
    
   He was far from being a good man. He also didn't speak to God, only listened, which is a relatively unique thing for a 'messenger' of God (usually they have quite lengthy conversations). He found grace in God's eyes - he was not a saint. That, usually, is a good point to mention.
   
2. Unrelated, but interesting fact: God commands Noah to take SEVEN pairs of the holy beasts and the birds, and only pairs (two of each) of the unholy beasts into the ark.
   (Gen 7:2-3). Asking a simple "why don't we have more birds than arcanoids and shellfish" (both 'unholy') might settle this entire mathematicall-idiocy right on its face. But anyways.
   
3. This, too is amusingly interesting:
   Genesis 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
   I am not sure, but I *think* the mountains are a BIT higher than fifteen cubits would cover. Just a thought.
   
4. Of course, I am sure you guys know this one:
   Genesis 8:11 And the dove came in to him at eventide; and lo in her mouth an olive-leaf freshly plucked; so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.
   So, what they're saying, really, is that God erased all life on earth -- EVERYTHING -- but it took 10 months to have the mountaintops appear (Gen 8:5) and 47 days later (Gen 8:6-10) there was already a fully grown (or at least "leafy") olive tree. Mmhm. Just as another point here, the dove "came out of the ark" twice - once it didn't find a place to put its "foot" on (hence, still water was all over.. uhh? after the mountaintops showed? weird dove) but a week later came back with an olive branch.
   Interesting how trees grew so fast, eh?
   
5. It took one month after that (approximately, by the account) to have the entire of earth dried off. (Gen 8:13-14)
   
6. Right after exiting the ark, Noah sacrificed a few animals to God. Whoops.
   Genesis 8:20 And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt-offerings on the altar.
   
   Considering the fact God doesn't accept the unholy animals (seven of each were supposed to be taken) and that there were supposed to be only two of each holy animal, I would say that was quite ruining the point of saving them in the first place (extinction by godly-sacrifice, anyone?). Wouldn't you?
   
7. Some creationists claim that natural disasters are God's punishments, just like the flood (like the tsunami a few years ago). But that would stand in DIRECT violation to God's own words in Genesis 8:21
   And the LORD smelled the sweet savour; and the LORD said in His heart: 'I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.
   
   And Genesis 9:11 And I will establish My covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of the flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.'
   
8. Chapter 10 of Genesis is an account of Noah's children and the nations they supposedly created. Chapter 11 starts with the Tower of Babel, which is - supposedly - what caused God to start the whole flood business in the first place. It then jumps to the continuation of Noah's children's children.
   
9. One of Noah's children had children who had children, etc (about 8 generations I believe, but you can recount if you wish). The last of which was Lot. It is the same Lot that later will run out of Soddom and Gamorah, that not only is another city (three generations ONLY after the 'new beginning' of the world), but they also managed to develop SUCH a bad case of amnesia, that they were evil, crooked, and horrible. So much so, that God ruined them. Short memory and a tad of bad math, right there.
   
10. Abraham was the same generation as Lot (about 8 generations after the flood). The account of his life states many feuds and wars with neighboring nations, including the Egyptians. So you don't have to go as far as our current days to do your "is it plausible" math. According to the bible, it took only 8 generations to have many many different nations - all with different languages and different customs. Most of them completely forgetting the fact they're family and hating one another.
    

 

There, that's from what I can remember from my bible studies. There's probably more, but I'll have to do a bit more research for the "heavier" points.

 

Unlike creationists, btw, Jewish Rabbis are debating the Ark story quite a lot. The interpretations vary and appear to have been debated for centuries (some of them exist in some of the 'other' books in Judaism other than the bible).

Here is a nice discussion about them: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=218&letter=F .

 

That should, though, give you some points to your discussion about the Ark story, more than the usual (very good and valid) scientific points about the implausibility of having all species of all animals on such small boat (the measurements are stated literally, no hassle there), and all the other commonly used ones.

 

Enjoy

 

~moo

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Considering the fact God doesn't accept the unholy animals (seven of each were supposed to be taken) and that there were supposed to be only two of each holy animal, I would say that was quite ruining the point of saving them in the first place (extinction by godly-sacrifice, anyone?). Wouldn't you?

That explains the whole unicorn problem in one shot, I think.

[mooeypoo]

hehe good point (but there aren't unicorns in the "old" testament, as far as I know, it's just a myth)

 

Still...

[Mr Skeptic]

Not if coupled with the common creationist argument that evolution can't explain diversity because all/most mutations are harmful, and consistent with observed mutation rates. There are genes with many alleles — HLA-B gene has 59.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16456786

 

I had asked about that some time ago, when I was not yet convinced that creationism was scientifically disproven. Each individual would have 2 alleles, so that Adam and Eve would have 4 alleles. So long as the alleles would have been significantly different from each other, this means the creation of 55 new alleles within thousands of years.

 

Likewise, Noah's ark would be a bottleneck restricting all land creatures to at most:

12 alleles for humans, (Noah's 3 sons and their wives), though this would be only 4 from Adam and Eve.

4 alleles for unclean animals (one pair),

14 or 28 alleles for clean animals (either 7 animals or 7 pairs of animals).

 

Any alleles numbering more than these would have had to been created within a few thousand years as dictated by the genealogies in the Bible. It seems that the creation of an extra 55 alleles in 4500 years would require a faster rate of evolution required for creationism than for the theory of evolution. Quite ironic.

 

Yes, it's always so much easier when God just simply does everything for us, isn't it? What strikes me as interesting about this belief is the fact that the creationists are unwilling to just let God do all the damning of the unbelievers for them too

 

But Joash replied to the hostile crowd around him, "Are you going to plead Baal's cause? Are you trying to save him? Whoever fights for him shall be put to death by morning! If Baal really is a god, he can defend himself when someone breaks down his altar."

Judges 6:30-32

 

Heh, heh.