Poll of the Day > So, Noah's ark...

(+) Yeah! (+)

If there are only two of each animal, then that means all of their offspring will be siblings. And two individuals alone can't repopulate an entire planet, and even if they could they would eventually die -- so at some point all consecutive animals would be inbred.

So it doesn't actually work...

I mean, I guess if you inbreed long enough you'll go through a lot of trial and error with who gets the bad genes and whatnot, and the flaws will eventually be worked out at least somewhat -- but still.

---

But it worked out for Adam and Eve!

---

Sarcasthma posted...

But it worked out for Adam and Eve!

Well, judging how Humans are behaving nowadays...

It worked out for Cain and Eve, too.

---

They were fruitful and multiplied....

that us all.

---

So it doesn't actually work...

You just have to believe in bibical magic and then it will work!

---

Anything is possible through Todd

OhhhJa posted...

Anything is possible through Todd

dont you mean Zod?

if not were in a holy war!

---

Flappers posted...

And two individuals alone can't repopulate an entire planet

I know some people who are trying their best. Must be awful finding dwellings with that much storage.

---

Inbreeding depression results in a population that's generally less fit than other populations with less inbreeding, due to the lack of genetic diversity, but if every population is equally inbred, that's no longer a disadvantage and the population in question is just as competitive as every other one.

To invoke Syndrome, if everyone is inbred, no one will be.

---

Its a fairy tale

---

adjl posted...

Inbreeding depression results in a population that's generally less fit than other populations with less inbreeding, due to the lack of genetic diversity, but if every population is equally inbred, that's no longer a disadvantage and the population in question is just as competitive as every other one.

To invoke Syndrome, if everyone is inbred, no one will be.

https://giphy.com/gifs/theoffice-the-office-tv-weight-loss-part-2-H61I3nahU1rst2HQWV

---

---

Not to defend the bible, but honestly there is nothing far fetched about a species evolving from 2 original animals, if the initial animals were genetically perfect (IE god created them with no flaws) then due to recessive genes their children might have some flaws (or the potential for their children to have flaws).

The bible actually almost touches on that with each generation (with a few exceptions) living shorter and shorter life spans than the previous generation, which could be the effects (slow) of inbreeding over time.

Doesn't mean there has to have been a god, could be aliens that planted the first humans (small number but with pure genes) etc.

---

Assuming it's at least partially true, it was built up over time and not a world ending flood but a regional flood (which were very common in that area) so there wasn't really a problem with that because those animals existed outside that region as well

---

We did it Patrick, we solved religion

---

Technically, without godlike powers changing the earth, there is pretty much no way to cover the earth completely with water, even if all the ice melted it would only raise the sea level a bit more then it already is, as we are already in a period where the sea level is almost as high as it's ever been, and the last bit would be due to the polar ice caps melting etc, but while that would put alot of costal cities underwater, most of the land masses would still be fine.

We would likely have more sparactic weather/stronger rain storms etc, and there is the possible potential of becoming like venus if we trap enough heat inside of perpetual cloud layers, but it's unlikely and honestly I'm pretty sure we have the technology to reverse that if it started to happen (just not needed yet).

Global warming is certainly a problem, but we are not all going to be underwater in 20 years, that is not possible, and neither was a world wide flood that covered the whole earth in water, unless god just straight up created water and then got rid of it (I mean, he's god, so he could, kinda a dick move though).

---

I think it's pretty clear God flooded the entire earth to kill everything aside from Noah and what was on the ark.

Each animal would have to be created with perfect genes and without any recessive flaws in order for their species to repopulate healthily and not degrade from inbreeding over time.
But prior to the flood, more than two of each animal already existed, God just demanded Noah find two of each one and then the others would wash away.
So you're telling me that, amongst the thousands of one animal, two happened to habe perfect genes, and Noah knew which ones to get? Or did God create two perfect specimens and then send Noah out to give them -- instead of just fucking giving them to him (you know, mysterious ways and all that)?


---

Flappers posted...

I think it's pretty clear God flooded the entire earth to kill everything aside from Noah and what was on the ark.

Each animal would have to be created with perfect genes and without any recessive flaws in order for their species to repopulate healthily and not degrade from inbreeding over time.
But prior to the flood, more than two of each animal already existed, God just demanded Noah find two of each one and then the others would wash away.
So you're telling me that, amongst the thousands of one animal, two happened to habe perfect genes, and Noah knew which ones to get? Or did God create two perfect specimens and then send Noah out to give them -- instead of just fucking giving them to him (you know, mysterious ways and all that)?

what about fish and lobsters and shit

they just get a free pass?

---

Okay, here's how I see it.

Inbreeding is going to be inevitable. With all of the first generation being siblings, the chances of sharing a recessive gene and having it pass on a disability is extremely high. In fact, it's going to happen at some point. But with each successive generation, we will have not siblings, but cousins, and so forth and so forth. So the chances of passing down a bad trait is less likely the further related you are, and eventually it won't even matter. BUT... First, thousands have to die, possibly millions. Nature needs to weed out the weak genes by having disabled offspring die and incompatible parents part ways. Very slowly, the problem will work itself out...but only after a death-toll.
It may take millions of years, but over time the gene-pool will dilute.

And different animals will actually have different rates of this dilution when you take certain factors into consideration. For example, some animals will strongly neglect their weaker offspring in favor of the strong one. Some animals also have shorter gestation periods and can pump out generations faster. But other animals are not picky about their partners, they are pregnant for a long time, or even favor the weak in an effort to make them stronger.

Bottom line, if nature is allowed to take its course, the problem will resolve itself. Some species may go extinct if they fail or are taken advantage of by quicker-evolving animals, but this too is a part of nature.
But it will likely take millions of years for the animals to be perfect. And until then, inbreeding and death is going to happen -- and it will be the will of God.

That's my final answer.


---

Did god wield the infinity gauntlet

---

PeterPumpknhead posted...

what about fish and lobsters and shit

they just get a free pass?

I would think so. They're in the water so they're immune to prime consequences of the flood.

Maybe God considered the underwater ecosystem to be already perfect. I mean, life did begin in the ocean, so they all had a head start on us.

---

PeterPumpknhead posted...

Did god wield the infinity gauntlet

dead meme

and god doesnt need an infinity gauntlet he literally turned people into salt just from being seen by them

---

What meme?

and why salt of all things, and honestly thats more fucked up than powerful

---

PeterPumpknhead posted...

What meme?

and why salt of all things, and honestly thats more fucked up than powerful

Thanos infinity gauntlet meme

And pretty much everything God does is fucked up.

---

Flappers posted...

Bottom line, if nature is allowed to take its course, the problem will resolve itself. Some species may go extinct if they fail or are taken advantage of by quicker-evolving animals, but this too is a part of nature.

Pretty much. Whatever bottlenecks you start from, given enough time, new diversity will make its way into the population. Ultimately, even without believing that Noah's Ark happened, speciation events tend to result in some degree of bottleneck (stuff like ring species show that this doesn't necessarily happen every time), which new species eventually overcome.

Metalsonic66 posted...

Yes, thank you.

---

Do not question God.

BEERandWEED posted...

Do not question God.

If God is real, I have a hard time imagining that whatever it is gives a shit about half the stuff we do -- including questioning it.

To quote Bo Burnham speaking from the perspective of God:
"You can eat pork because why the fuck would I give a shit? I created the universe! You think I'm drawing the line at the fucking deli-isle?"

---

a bible story is made up nonsense?


---

BEERandWEED posted...

Do not question God.

If he didnt want to be questioned why did he go out of his/her/their/DATA REDACTION way to make us so damn curious

---

wolfy42 posted...

there is nothing far fetched about a species evolving from 2 original animals, if the initial animals were genetically perfect (IE god created them with no flaws) then due to recessive genes their children might have some flaws (or the potential for their children to have flaws).

The bible actually almost touches on that with each generation (with a few exceptions) living shorter and shorter life spans than the previous generation, which could be the effects (slow) of inbreeding over time.

This is what I thought

Flappers posted...

If there are only two of each animal, then that means all of their offspring will be siblings. And two individuals alone can't repopulate an entire planet, and even if they could they would eventually die -- so at some point all consecutive animals would be inbred.

So it doesn't actually work...

I mean, I guess if you inbreed long enough you'll go through a lot of trial and error with who gets the bad genes and whatnot, and the flaws will eventually be worked out at least somewhat -- but still.

Firstly, the Bible does stipulate that 'there be seven of some'. Though what type of animals those seven ARE is unclear.

But here's the thing. Inbreeding happens a lot already. Think of yourself. You exist (that's 1) and you have two parents (that's 3). Each of those parents have two parents (7) and each of them has 2 (15), and so-on and so-on. If you had 0 inbreeding you wouldn't even be able to get back to medieval times IIRC before your number of unique ancestors would outnumber the total number of humans that ever existed. And God forbid you wanna get married to someone who is also completely genetically independent from you (that doubles the load) and your kid also wants to marry someone genetically different.

To make this worse we know for a fact that there's been genetic bottle-necks in the past and many people were, for whatever reason, unable to move beyond their local area to find mates so it would become impossible to find someone who wasn't related to you somehow (which may be why most people only care about immediate relations). I mean, if you live in a small village with only 100 people and no travel how long do you think it will be before everyone is at least second cousins to everyone else?

Inbreeding also doesn't result in things like mutants with flipper feat and a unique aptitude with the banjo. IIRC the odds of one generation messing up the kids are relatively low. It's the impact of repeated generations with little to no chance to re-diversify that results in things like kids who can't even speak until they're 6. Not that this means you should get stuck in the dryer all of a sudden and have fun with it.

If we are discussing Noah's Ark it's safe to assume we're including God since, ya know, he flooded it all and warned Noah. I suspect that, if God was around and seriously invested in ensuring the survival of life after the flood (but didn't just remake everything for whatever reason) he could have either shored up the genes or found a way to, at least temporarily, halt the genetic degradation if he wanted to.

I don't personally believe the story is real. IMO, Genesis, and most of the Old Testament, is mostly Jewish lore and culture and not essential to the core which is the four gospels. It's like saying that the Star Wars movies have no value and are wrong because Gungan frontier was a bad game.

"perfect genes."

:-/

Yeah, I'm not going to the Bible to learn about biology- a book that says that if you put a pregnant animal in front of a fence, the animal's baby will come out striped. It's a book of parables and fables primarily designed to either fill in explanatory gaps with (mostly incorrect) answers or control a person's behavior via magic carrot and stick philosophy. Stop taking it literally and maybe you won't have to treat reality as the enemy of your faith.

The only thing that the Bible is useful for in a literal sense is neither science nor a historical account of events, but an analysis of the culture of the times+places that its various texts were written in.

---

Gaawa_chan posted...

"perfect genes."

:-/

Yeah, I'm not going to the Bible to learn about biology- a book that says that if you put a pregnant animal in front of a fence, the animal's baby will come out striped. It's a book of parables and fables primarily designed to either fill in explanatory gaps with (mostly incorrect) answers or control a person's behavior via magic carrot and stick philosophy. Stop taking it literally and maybe you won't have to treat reality as the enemy of your faith.

The only thing that the Bible is useful for in a literal sense is neither science nor a historical account of events, but an analysis of the culture of the times+places that its various texts were written in.

I don't treat reality as the enemy of my faith. Then again, as I just admitted, I care mostly about the four gospels and don't try to prove the old testament to be historically accurate. However, I feel that this response is very rude and dismissive and the sort of thing that serves as more of an example of why people refuse to give up their beliefs instead of being 'converted' away from them.

Unbridled9 posted...

I don't treat reality as the enemy of my faith.

I wasn't responding to anyone specific, but if you're going to clutch your pearls over it, fine.

These explanations boil down to "god used magic to make it work, *insert some bizarre statement that shows the person has no understanding of the concepts they're talking about, both with respect to science AND the story itself*."

This is ignoring that nothing needs to be explained away; these attempts at rationalizing away perceived failures of the text don't work because these scenarios never happened. They are parables. They are moral lessons. They are NOT historical accounts, and trying to read them as such? THAT is the rude, disrespectful, and dismissive behavior right there. That's trying to twist text to fit what you want it to be instead of what it is.

the sort of thing that serves as more of an example of why people refuse to give up their beliefs instead of being 'converted' away from them.

The #1 reason given by people who deconvert is that they read the religious text themselves. Make of that what you will. I don't care about your feelings. MY point is that trying to rationalize away what logical issues you have with a text of moral lessons and parables is to miss the point of the text and do it a disservice.

---

Gaawa_chan posted...

These explanations boil down to "god used magic to make it work,

Science as we know it IS magic.

How did the laws of the universe that we have discovered come to be? What makes gravity work the way it does, why does light travel at the speed it does. Something had to create those rules/laws, they didn't just poof appear, some intelligent design needed to be behind so many things that work together perfectly.

That is magic.

Therefore, science is magic.

---

Unbridled9 posted...

But here's the thing. Inbreeding happens a lot already. Think of yourself. You exist (that's 1) and you have two parents (that's 3). Each of those parents have two parents (7) and each of them has 2 (15), and so-on and so-on. If you had 0 inbreeding you wouldn't even be able to get back to medieval times IIRC before your number of unique ancestors would outnumber the total number of humans that ever existed. And God forbid you wanna get married to someone who is also completely genetically independent from you (that doubles the load) and your kid also wants to marry someone genetically different.

On average, you share roughly 5% of your variable genome (that is, the part of the genome that isn't common to every human simply for being part of the species) with every other person in the world. Each step along your family tree reduces genetic similarity by 50% (parents/siblings are 50% similar, uncles/aunts/grandparents are 25%, etc), which means that by the time you get to second cousins, you're only sharing an average of 3.13% of your genome, which is so little that you're likely sharing more than that just because of random chance. Generally speaking, "inbreeding" refers to reproduction among individuals that are more closely related than that background similarity, since there's really not much point to the concept if it applies to everyone (see Syndrome's contribution to the discussion). That's reflected in laws against incest: second cousins are fair game pretty much everywhere (though finding a date at a family reunion is still going to leave a funny taste in people's mouths) because they aren't any more closely related to you than a stranger would be.

wolfy42 posted...

How did the laws of the universe that we have discovered come to be? What makes gravity work the way it does, why does light travel at the speed it does. Something had to create those rules/laws, they didn't just poof appear, some intelligent design needed to be behind so many things that work together perfectly.

That's just the paradoxical nature of existence. The notion of something always existing is impossible for us to wrap our heads around, so the assumption remains that something must have created everything. That thing in turn, however, must have either existed forever or been created by something else, so ultimately, we eventually need to accept the concept of eternal existence.

That said, rather than thinking about the laws of physics in terms of a deity enforcing them, I think there's merit in thinking of those laws themselves as being deific. They are, after all, all-powerful forces that govern our universe, and what does that sound like if not a god? God didn't have to make physics, physics can just be God.

As for the idea that they must have been intelligently designed because they work perfectly together, that falls into the same trap that applying that logic to biological evolution does: If the complex systems in question didn't work properly together, they wouldn't have survived. There's no reason whatever primordial nothingness became the universe can't also be considered in terms of biological evolution, randomly forming with different rules until something eventually works. From our perspective, it looks like the dice have rolled nothing but sixes, but that's not as implausible as it seems when you take into account a selective force that's erased every non-6 result that's ever occurred.

---

https://youtu.be/h6omFJhKr6o

---

Gaawa_chan posted...

I wasn't responding to anyone specific, but if you're going to clutch your pearls over it, fine.

These explanations boil down to "god used magic to make it work, *insert some bizarre statement that shows the person has no understanding of the concepts they're talking about, both with respect to science AND the story itself*."

This is ignoring that nothing needs to be explained away; these attempts at rationalizing away perceived failures of the text don't work because these scenarios never happened. They are parables. They are moral lessons. They are NOT historical accounts, and trying to read them as such? THAT is the rude, disrespectful, and dismissive behavior right there. That's trying to twist text to fit what you want it to be instead of what it is.

The #1 reason given by people who deconvert is that they read the religious text themselves. Make of that what you will. I don't care about your feelings. MY point is that trying to rationalize away what logical issues you have with a text of moral lessons and parables is to miss the point of the text and do it a disservice.

You're the one who came into a topic discussing a matter of religion specifically to mock it. Not me.

On average, you share roughly 5% of your variable genome (that is, the part of the genome that isn't common to every human simply for being part of the species) with every other person in the world. Each step along your family tree reduces genetic similarity by 50% (parents/siblings are 50% similar, uncles/aunts/grandparents are 25%, etc), which means that by the time you get to second cousins, you're only sharing an average of 3.13% of your genome, which is so little that you're likely sharing more than that just because of random chance. Generally speaking, "inbreeding" refers to reproduction among individuals that are more closely related than that background similarity, since there's really not much point to the concept if it applies to everyone (see Syndrome's contribution to the discussion). That's reflected in laws against incest: second cousins are fair game pretty much everywhere (though finding a date at a family reunion is still going to leave a funny taste in people's mouths) because they aren't any more closely related to you than a stranger would be.

The point I'm trying to make here is that being 'inbreeding free' is both a statistical impossibility (because the number of ancestors you'd need is insane just to have 0 inbreeding) and a logical one (because there's been so many bottlenecks for a multitude of reasons). The whole 'village where everyone ends up second cousins' is more an example of how, even when trying to avoid it, it becomes near-impossible to do so in a relatively closed-off community with little to no chance to travel.

The Bible:
A spiritual being created the material universe. That being is all knowing but was still disappointed in the outcome. That being is all powerful but chooses the least direct way of dealing with problems. That being is perfect but problems with its creation still arise.

This topic:
The part about repopulating a species from only 2 specimens is a little far fetched.

---

Unbridled9 posted...

The point I'm trying to make here is that being 'inbreeding free' is both a statistical impossibility (because the number of ancestors you'd need is insane just to have 0 inbreeding) and a logical one (because there's been so many bottlenecks for a multitude of reasons). The whole 'village where everyone ends up second cousins' is more an example of how, even when trying to avoid it, it becomes near-impossible to do so in a relatively closed-off community with little to no chance to travel.

I mean, it doesn't stop being inbreeding just because interbreeding is impractical. In those populations that are isolated from the rest of the species and have no choice but to inbreed, you will see a general reduction in fitness compared to the general population, which is called "inbreeding depression." The extent to which that becomes a problem depends on just how bad the inbreeding is, but it's still going to happen.

---

adjl posted...

I mean, it doesn't stop being inbreeding just because interbreeding is impractical. In those populations that are isolated from the rest of the species and have no choice but to inbreed, you will see a general reduction in fitness compared to the general population, which is called "inbreeding depression." The extent to which that becomes a problem depends on just how bad the inbreeding is, but it's still going to happen.

I'm curious what the population of North Sentinel Island is like by now. They've been there for centuries if not millennia in a closed-off island that's both small and has no chance to vary itself up genetically.

The rabbinic argument was that the effects of Adam and Eve's fall was less pronounced on the world and humans and animals back then. It was possible to procreate with your siblings and others and not worry about inbreeding. Also, people back then were superhumanly stronger, healthier, and lived for centuries. As the world became more degraded, later generations were born weaker and less physically perfect.

It shares a lot in common with the Hinduism ages of Satya-yuga and Kali-yuga.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

The part about repopulating a species from only 2 specimens is a little far fetched.

This reminds me of something. Apparently, they made a resproduction on the ark somewhere. Now, while its big, it doesnt look like it could hold every animal. So, apparently, they say that they just need two animals from similar animals. So, two horses will get you horses, zebras, donkeys, etc Which doesnt make sense considering you can have things like a Zorse or mules
---

BB mofo posted...

Also, people back then were superhumanly stronger, healthier, and lived for centuries.

Bullshit.
---

LinkPizza posted...

This reminds me of something. Apparently, they made a resproduction on the ark somewhere. Now, while its big, it doesnt look like it could hold every animal. So, apparently, they say that they just need two animals from similar animals. So, two horses will get you horses, zebras, donkeys, etc Which doesnt make sense considering you can have things like a Zorse or mules

I mean, there's probably ways to fudge the numbers enough to make it viable, and the subspecies thing does mean you won't need, say, a siberian tiger and a java tiger, but the number is still immense even if you brought babies onto the ark.

Flappers posted...

If there are only two of each animal, then that means all of their offspring will be siblings. And two individuals alone can't repopulate an entire planet, and even if they could they would eventually die -- so at some point all consecutive animals would be inbred.

So it doesn't actually work...

I mean, I guess if you inbreed long enough you'll go through a lot of trial and error with who gets the bad genes and whatnot, and the flaws will eventually be worked out at least somewhat -- but still.

semantics

---

FatBecky posted...

semantics

sementics

---