(October 24, 2017 at 10:23 am)KevinM1 Wrote: Huggy, Minimum Viable Population is a thing.  14 animals per 'kind' isn't nearly enough to make a population viable.  The MVP for most animals is in the thousands, as it accounts for inbreeding deficiencies, disease, existing predators, availability and quality of food sources, other potential environmental hazards, etc.

The Ark would need to hold tens of thousands of animals in order to repopulate the planet, and it would take far, far longer than several thousand years for the repopulation (and biodiversity we see today) to happen.

It's a myth, and a poor one at that.

Is that how were going to play it? You have absolutely no idea how long it would take any number of animals to repopulate the earth, that is something that has never been observed, so you're not even talking science right now.

Well how about this, the way our cells work make abiogenesis an impossibility, but for some strange reason that doesn't debunk abiogenesis, instead scientists theorize that ancient cells must have operated differently from modern cells.

So what makes you so sure that cells don't degrade after reproduction (In all other cases a copy of a copy of a copy would be inferior to the original), so while we may currently see ill effects caused by a low gene pool, maybe ancient species didn't due to stronger genetics.

(October 24, 2017 at 10:49 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(October 24, 2017 at 10:23 am)KevinM1 Wrote: Huggy, Minimum Viable Population is a thing.  14 animals per 'kind' isn't nearly enough to make a population viable.  The MVP for most animals is in the thousands, as it accounts for inbreeding deficiencies, disease, existing predators, availability and quality of food sources, other potential environmental hazards, etc.

The Ark would need to hold tens of thousands of animals in order to repopulate the planet, and it would take far, far longer than several thousand years for the repopulation (and biodiversity we see today) to happen.

It's a myth, and a poor one at that.

Is that how were going to play it? You have absolutely no idea how long it would take any number of animals to repopulate the earth, that is something that has never been observed, so you're not even talking science right now.

Well how about this, the way our cells work make abiogenesis an impossibility, but for some strange reason that doesn't debunk abiogenesis, instead scientists theorize that ancient cells must have operated differently from modern cells.

So what makes you so sure that cells don't degrade after reproduction (In all other cases a copy of a copy of a copy would be inferior to the original), so while we may currently see ill effects caused by a low gene pool, maybe ancient species didn't due to stronger genetics.

So

Man, you really are out of your depth.  You don't know the first thing of what you're talking about.  It seems you barely understand the basic definitions of the words science, abiogenesis and genetics, let alone know anything about them.

You're an embarrassment.

(October 24, 2017 at 10:53 am)Harry Nevis Wrote:

(October 24, 2017 at 10:49 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Is that how were going to play it? You have absolutely no idea how long it would take any number of animals to repopulate the earth, that is something that has never been observed, so you're not even talking science right now.

Well how about this, the way our cells work make abiogenesis an impossibility, but for some strange reason that doesn't debunk abiogenesis, instead scientists theorize that ancient cells must have operated differently from modern cells.

So what makes you so sure that cells don't degrade after reproduction (In all other cases a copy of a copy of a copy would be inferior to the original), so while we may currently see ill effects caused by a low gene pool, maybe ancient species didn't due to stronger genetics.

So

Man, you really are out of your depth.  You don't know the first thing of what you're talking about.  It seems you barely understand the basic definitions of the words science, abiogenesis and genetics, let alone know anything about them.

You're an embarrassment.

Starting at 3:22 of the above video.

Quote:Modern cells separate themselves from the environment with a lipid bi-layer. The problem with modern phospholipids is they are too good at what they do. They form a nearly impenetrable barrier. modern cells must use proteins to move molecules across their surface, But life didn't have to start with modern chemicals!

You were saying?

(October 24, 2017 at 10:49 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(October 24, 2017 at 10:23 am)KevinM1 Wrote: Huggy, Minimum Viable Population is a thing.  14 animals per 'kind' isn't nearly enough to make a population viable.  The MVP for most animals is in the thousands, as it accounts for inbreeding deficiencies, disease, existing predators, availability and quality of food sources, other potential environmental hazards, etc.

The Ark would need to hold tens of thousands of animals in order to repopulate the planet, and it would take far, far longer than several thousand years for the repopulation (and biodiversity we see today) to happen.

It's a myth, and a poor one at that.

Is that how were going to play it? You have absolutely no idea how long it would take any number of animals to repopulate the earth, that is something that has never been observed, so you're not even talking science right now.

Well how about this, the way our cells work make abiogenesis an impossibility, but for some strange reason that doesn't debunk abiogenesis, instead scientists theorize that ancient cells must have operated differently from modern cells.

So what makes you so sure that cells don't degrade after reproduction (In all other cases a copy of a copy of a copy would be inferior to the original), so while we may currently see ill effects caused by a low gene pool, maybe ancient species didn't due to stronger genetics.

You are a bonafide idiot.

We have conservationists today working to save endangered species.  Conservationists today trying to maintain certain animal populations around the globe.  We have a history of triumphs and failures with it. Data.  We also have geneticists, biologists, and others whose work inform what people on the ground and policymakers do.  Just because it goes against your story, doesn't make it untrue.  MVP (and the associated PVA - Population Viability Analyses) exist.  Deal with it.

Regarding abiogenesis, I have the distinct impression you're talking out of your ass (like usual), so maybe post something supporting your assertion? Something not from Talk Origins, or any other creationist source?

(October 24, 2017 at 10:49 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Is that how were going to play it? You have absolutely no idea how long it would take any number of animals to repopulate the earth, that is something that has never been observed, so you're not even talking science right now.

A couple of scientific papers calculating minimum viable population size ...

Estimates of minimum viable population sizes for vertebrates and factors influencing those estimates

DETERMINING MINIMUM VIABLE POPULATION SIZES FOR THE GRIZZLY BEAR

(October 24, 2017 at 10:49 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Well how about this, the way our cells work make abiogenesis an impossibility

Citation required.

(October 24, 2017 at 10:49 am)Huggy74 Wrote: So what makes you so sure that cells don't degrade after reproduction (In all other cases a copy of a copy of a copy would be inferior to the original),

There is a difference between a digital and an analogue copy. Copying an analogue tape or photograph means that noise builds upon noise as the signal degrades. Your computer on the other hand will make perfect copies each time no matter how many times it happens if no errors occur. But any errors that occur will be localised. Genetic reproduction is more akin to the latter than the former with errors being mutations. The theory of evolution accounts for the role of mutations over time. This is how new information enters a population. Most mutations are deleterious and die off. Some mutations are neutral and open up a new area of search space, while other mutations are beneficial and are more likely to be passed onto off-spring.

---

(October 24, 2017 at 11:02 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Starting at 3:22 of the above video.

Quote:Modern cells separate themselves from the environment with a lipid bi-layer. The problem with modern phospholipids is they are too good at what they do. They form a nearly impenetrable barrier. modern cells must use proteins to move molecules across their surface, But life didn't have to start with modern chemicals!

So?

(October 24, 2017 at 11:02 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(October 24, 2017 at 10:53 am)Harry Nevis Wrote: Man, you really are out of your depth.  You don't know the first thing of what you're talking about.  It seems you barely understand the basic definitions of the words science, abiogenesis and genetics, let alone know anything about them.

You're an embarrassment.

Starting at 3:22 of the above video.

Quote:Modern cells separate themselves from the environment with a lipid bi-layer. The problem with modern phospholipids is they are too good at what they do. They form a nearly impenetrable barrier. modern cells must use proteins to move molecules across their surface, But life didn't have to start with modern chemicals!

You were saying?

It's cute how you don't mention 3:48 through 4:50. Honest and always, Huggy!

You were saying?

OMFG, Huggy, did you even watch the rest of the video? It's definitely not the gotcha you think it is.

But, please, keep making our point for us.

---

This is what happens when you're a Google scholar, and you look for headlines to prove your conclusion rather than actually learn things.

(October 24, 2017 at 11:14 am)KevinM1 Wrote: OMFG, Huggy, did you even watch the rest of the video?  It's definitely not the gotcha you think it is.

But, please, keep making our point for us.

Don't you mean wrecking arguments and providing us a learning experience? 

(October 24, 2017 at 11:18 am)Crossless2.0 Wrote:

(October 24, 2017 at 11:14 am)KevinM1 Wrote: OMFG, Huggy, did you even watch the rest of the video?  It's definitely not the gotcha you think it is.

But, please, keep making our point for us.

Don't you mean wrecking arguments and providing us a learning experience? 

I get the distinct impression that the usual crew of argumentative theists on here dazzle their contemporaries IRL with their BS, which accounts for their smugness. It's like being proud about being the tallest midget around.

I don’t understand why these people insist on smashing themselves in the face with this particular hammer. It’s not as though the Christian salvation myth stands or falls on a stubbornly mindless reading of Genesis.

Not being a fucking moron is always an option.