If evolution were true then the first forms of life would have had a very small gene pool as would each new species that evolved....wouldn't they?
It would have taken many generations to expand the gene pool, I feel.

Besides, a small gene pool is only a problem when you take God out of the picture. As the author of genes I am sure he would have been able to overcome that small problem.

Sure this doesn't work in two weeks with two individual bisexual liveforms. You still miss the time frame in which evolution happens.

Yes it has taken many many generations to expand the gene pool. What about having zillions and zillions of single individual liveforms in one cubic metre of ocean water? That's a bit more than two. And what about hundrets of millions of years? That's a bit more than fivethousand years. When you look at the fossils it really tooked a long long time until there was a bit more variation. It really started when there was enough oxygene, produced by cyanobacterias. The first cyanobacterias dates back into 3.5-3.8 billion years, in the Precambrian.

The origial thread topic here is another small proof of what happened. Micro evolution. First separations, first specialization, and on we go with macro evolution.

What you overlook is that with bacterias and protozoal liveforms a small gene pool absolutely doesn't matter. It would be enough to have just one. Because they don't mix genes. They reproduce by cell division, copying the genetic material 1:1. Sometime this reproduction is not exactly 1:1. Which leads to variations. But it mainly keeps the genes 1:1. That's why it takes a long time to see evolution happen here. Honestly a bit surprising that it happened so fast at the coli bacterias from the original topic.

Bisexual reproduction came much much later. And here the gene pool pretty much matters. Bisexual reproduction also evolutes much faster. Because it mixes genes, and doesn't just copy it.

That's of course not what the bible or any other holy book tells you. Bible is not even close to the facts at no point. Because it represents the knowledge of before 5000-2000 years. They didn't know the facts, they didn't have the scientic methods we have nowadays. They needed to introduce deities to explain the world. Because they lacked of knowledge. Ooh, a thunderstorm. Must be an angry god. We cannot explain it with something else. So there came a god of sun, a god of fire, a god of ... . And finally it all turned into one god for everything.

But i don't want to argue here with you if your god exists or not. Keep your faith. Believe. I don't mind. As long as you don't want to burn me down as a sorcerer as your religion did before with scientists.



Ah, okay. Tell that the malformed animals that were born out of endogamy. Every farmer can tell you that you better don't do that. This small problem is not even allowed to happen you say here


I think i said it before. Faith ends where knowledge starts.

Quoting Tiles.

Religion doesn't kill people.
Science doesn't kill people.
People kill people.
Thus, the solution to people...is people.
(?mob?)


Does the fault lie with ideas and concepts which are inert otherwise, or instead, with the human beings which actually committed the acts?
The root evil might always be some other side, some other label, and never the embedded inherent flaw which itself fuels conflict and disdain.
Perhaps, it is easy to look into the past and see darkness, ignorance, and primitive brutality. Those in the future may do the same.

Quoting Tiles.

An argument ends where the truth of uncertainty begins...(and other such bullsh!t) (none of which is directed specifically at Tiles).

So why o why doesn't God jump in and save those countless amounts of species that went extinct? I guess he loses interest in his creation pretty fast for someone that's allegedly immortal.



I'm sure people will find some kind of other excuse to kill eachother, but I do think religion often makes things worse. Just look at Africa, the Middle-east and so on.

Perhaps science makes things worse looking at the weapon industry, but I'm sure these people would try to kill eachother with sticks and stones if they wouldn't have access to Ak74s, grenades, knifes and what more,

Cheers

Good question.....I don't know!



Maybe...but I can see other possibilities.
Depends on whether you mean the ones that went extinct before mans rebellion against God or the ones that went extinct after.

If before, perhaps they served their purpose in the preparation of the earth for us?
If after, then that is likely to be our fault.


THE GENE POOL
So its possible for evolution to have a small gene pool without Gods assistance.
But its not possible for the flood survivors to have a small gene pool with Gods assistance.

I see...
I am now meant to believe that the horse, for example, could have a small gene pool when it first evolved from whatever it evolved from and over a long period of time the horse gene pool would grow large enough for there to be no problems.

But I'm not allowed to believe that God could ensure that the small gene pool would not have any bad effects until the gene pool grew large enough.

You can believe what you want.
I personally believe that everything is made by composting. My own holy book says so. A hail to the holy flowerpot. You can even see the single plies in the earth. Have a look at a compost heap, look ath the plies there. Nearly identical. That is the proof for composting. The holy flowerpot exists. Your bible is wrong, mine is true. My god is much bigger than yours

But knowing is better than believing.

Is there a fact proving Evolution true? Not just one. A ton. Is there a big consensus around the world that the Evolution theory is true? Yes. Was somebody be able to disproof the evolution theory in the last 150 years? Nope.

Is there a fact proving that the Genesis is true? Not a single one. Is there a consensus around the world that the world is made by a god as described in the Genesis? Nope, not longer. Just a small amount of creationists still do so. And tries to get back the power. Was somebody able to disproof the Genesis as really happened? Yes. Nearly every point of the Genesis gots disproven by science. Water everywhere, and god then separated ... . And that shall be true? With nowadays knowledge in the neck? Please! How dumb do you think humans are?



You are not meant to believe. That's the whole point. Science is knowing, not believing.

It is Facts what counts. When a theory gets proven by facts then this theory becomes true. When a theory gets disproven by facts then this theory becomes false. Evolution has been proven by lots of facts. And is the best theory at the moment.

What small gene pool? Who sais that bisexual evolution steps starts with small gene pools, with just a handful individuals? It normally starts with populations, not individuals. It starts with a big gene pool. A river can separate two parts of a landscape and so two populations, or a continent drifts away. Or the whole species stretches across a this big area that the single populations looses contact. Different food supply, climate and time will do the rest then. Or the climate changes in general so that the whole population has to adapt to it. Or another species comes in the way. I just say Aga. Or bunny. Or rat. Or ...



There are fossils. There are facts. There are the natural laws. So for the first question, yes, it is possible. But as told, normally it is a big gene pool, not a small one.

There is not a single proof for an ark. There is not a single proof for a worldwide flood. When it would have been worldwide, where is the water gone? The ark must have been so big that the whole wood of the whole world wouldn't have been enough to build it. Static would have destroyed the ark anyways, too heavy. But even when not, it would have taken thousands of years to collect all the wood for the ark. And thousands of years to just put every species at its place, even when they would have waited in front of the ark. Picking just the mammal species would mean that we would have died off with just one male and one female of every species. Every farmer can tell you that.

So for the second question: Nope, impossible. Even with help of a god. It would have to break too much natural laws for that. Which speaks against the almightiness of your god anyways. When it is almighty then it just needed to snip with the fingers, no need for a flood ...

As a sidequestion, what about the free will in Sodom and Ghomorra? Pretty inconsequent and changeable your god it seems

And the story with the ark is just one of many that is provable wrong. You don't even have to be a scientist here. This stuff is myth stuff. Not facts. There may be small grain of truth here and there. But that's basically it. And surely not at such things like the universe is made of water.

Again i have to repeat myself. When you think that you have found facts to disprove the evolution theory then do so. Nobel price is waiting. And lots of money.

But even when you could, this doesn't automatically say the Bible, and especially the Genesis is true.

I don't think it matters, as either way, those 'innocent' species went extinct and we, the 'rebellious' humans, still survive. That's kind of strange.





Well, there's no such thing as flood survivors when it comes to a global flood, geological research shows it never happened. Still, assuming there was a flood, even just a small or local one, that could definitely decimate a species. That flood could cause a harsh natural selection because of the (sudden) change in environment or the species might (temporarily or not) migrate elsewhere.



You're allowed to believe anything, but when it comes to evidence that can be tested, there is nothing that suggests a God must have intervened. I'm not saying it's not a possibility, but in my opinion it's definitely the most unlikely option of all,

Cheers

Just to throw a spanner in the works for both of you, heres my two cents worth.
(BTW I have faith in evolution, but I dont deny God, I just dont have enough proof yet)

Believers: If all the species of animals were saved on the ark during the
flood, how did the ones that lived over-seas get TO the ark, swim? And how
did they get back home? Treading water while the water was high would be easier.

Athiests: Evolution is very hit or miss dont you agree? So is any TOOL when
its weilder is not paying attention. But evolution would be a very useful
tool to an entity in the process of creating a man....

According to the bible (and science) there was only one land mass, so no swimming was required because there were none that lived overseas.
As for after...perhaps it was the water that started the continental drift in the first place?
Of course the bible and science disagree greatly, on when there was only one land mass, supercontinent.

I think I said it before!
Scientists assemble thousands of facts and then use common sense and imagination to string (mold) these facts together into the theory of evolution.
Which is why there are many branches that have been shown to be wrong. Common Sense and imagination are prone to error.
I do not deny the thousands of facts, I do not deny the "real" fossils.
I deny the "interpretation" of them as evidence of evolution.

Scientist: Here we have this fossil and now that fossil shows how this creature evolved into that creature.
Me: But this fossil looks nothing like that fossil.
Scientist: I know, but that's just because we haven't found the fossils that definitely proove it yet
But you can trust me....they exist. In the meantime, here are some drawings that show how they evolved
Me: Hmm I don't think I will trust you thanks, I have seen you prooven wrong too many times before
I've even seen you caught out in deliberate lies.