What did carnivores eat after the flood?

[otseng]

Quarkhead asked a good question. So I'm creating a new topic here to address it.

After all the animals stepped off Noah's ark, what did the carnivores eat? All the (land) animals perished in a world-wide flood. So the only animals that carnivores could eat were those that stepped off the boat. Wouldn't they have all eaten each other? And also what did the carnivores eat while they were in the ark?

[bernee51]

god destroyed sodom & gommorah and left only lot and his daughters

god will destroy this earth and leave only a few people

really? how do you know?

[Jose]

If the bear population could replenish itself with 2, I'm sure the cows could get by with 6.

What about the genetic bottleneck? Were these 2 bears, or 6 cows, supernaturally cleansed of all recessive mutations, so that the inbreeding among brothers and sisters wouldn't cause problems? The crew of the Bounty started with a bigger starting population on Pitcairn's Island, and still had serious problems.

The genetic bottleneck looks like justt as big a problem as finding food for the animals.

[unknownuser]

the way the bible is written "after" the flood could mean a day after or 3 years after

also we don't do burnt offerings because it symbolized Jesus' crucuficion (sp?)

[Oolon Colluphid]

god destroyed sodom & gommorah and left only lot and his daughters

god will destroy this earth and leave only a few people

really? how do you know?

Nearly. The correct phrasing is: How do you know? Were you there?

[unknownuser]

i wasn't there, but that's how the story goes

but according to your link, that answer is not one you should take seriously, since it's based on religious belief.

[unknownuser]

if adam and eve could produce the entire human race, then so could 2 bears produce the entire bear race

but there's the possibility that there were a lot less harmful organisms and such so that genes w/unfavorable traits may not have been a factor

consider the length of human life (hundreds of years) then to modern human life span

also consider things like the incidences of things like cancer and the increase in modern inventions, like insecticide, and such

as man increasingly creates an artificial world he slowly adds to the destruction of the natural

when the earth was created it was perfect. after the fall it got progressively sicker.

[ENIGMA]

if adam and eve could produce the entire human race, then so could 2 bears produce the entire bear race

But they couldn't. That's the point.

but there's the possibility that there were a lot less harmful organisms and such so that genes w/unfavorable traits may not have been a factor

Pfft... Like biologically intricate entities like humans require external organisms to bring them down. Cancer, Cystic Fibrosis, and the like seem to do the trick quite well without such help.

consider the length of human life (hundreds of years) then to modern human life span

No, try an estimate around 30-40, and perhaps 50 if one has a good string of luck. Watch our developments improve the human life span so that 100 years is not unheard of.

also consider things like the incidences of things like cancer and the increase in modern inventions, like insecticide, and such

Cancer being a major killer today means that we are massively better off than those of previous centuries.

Why? Because in those times, plagues, fevers, infections, etc. were among the leading causes of death.

We've fixed those, and so people live longer lives. However, since people are not immortal, if they are not going to die of those diseases, they are going to die of something else. Cancer is a part of that "something else".

I have little doubt that when cancer is erradicated, then there will be a new affliction to take it's place, however the elimination of cancer will likely result in increasing our likely lifespan even farther...

as man increasingly creates an artificial world he slowly adds to the destruction of the natural

*GASP* Heaven forbid that we use our artificial antibiotics to counter the natural bacterial diseases! In fact we should ban all of our artificial modern medicine since it interferes in the natural course of things, death.

[/SARCASM]

when the earth was created it was perfect. after the fall it got progressively sicker.

When we first developed on Earth, life generally sucked. However, as our knowledge and understanding grew, we discovered ways to make it better.

[ST88]

What about the genetic bottleneck? Were these 2 bears, or 6 cows, supernaturally cleansed of all recessive mutations, so that the inbreeding among brothers and sisters wouldn't cause problems? The crew of the Bounty started with a bigger starting population on Pitcairn's Island, and still had serious problems.

The genetic bottleneck looks like justt as big a problem as finding food for the animals.

The genetic problems that come up with humans with regards to inbreeding do not apply to most other animals. They are so alike genetically and have so few recessive diseases that inbreeding is not generally a problem. Humans are much more diverse in their (our) genotypes, and we don't chose our mates based on rational, replicable criteria -- therefore it's easier for recessive-linked diseases to wander through the population.

Further, one would assume that the animals, as exemplars of the species, that Noah ushered into the ark did not have the opportunity to acquire any of these conditions because (in a YEC scenario) their genetic material had not yet degraded to such a point.

[Jose]

The genetic problems that come up with humans with regards to inbreeding do not apply to most other animals. They are so alike genetically and have so few recessive diseases that inbreeding is not generally a problem. Humans are much more diverse in their (our) genotypes, and we don't chose our mates based on rational, replicable criteria -- therefore it's easier for recessive-linked diseases to wander through the population.

No, the same problems do come up with animals. It's really evident with dogs, where inbreeding to maintain "pure" breeds leads to nasty conditions like hip dysplasia due to homozygous recessives. Even if we omit dogs, where humans have directed a lot of marriages for thousands of years, and look at wild populations, we still come up with similar results as for us. The rate of mutation seems to be about the same among many species of mammals, in terms of base changes per billion base pairs per year.

This is one of the reasons that we worry when endangered species reach low population sizes. Recovery from too small a population, even if habitat is available, is often impeded by the genetic bottleneck.

I've often wondered about the genetic diversity, though. I can recognize individual people pretty well, but I have a hard time recognizing individual deer. Maybe I'm just not a deer kind of guy, and all the deer know who's who. Maybe we all look the same to deer.

One possibility for the seemingly greater diversity of humans is that there are so dang many of us. Perhaps, if there were as many deer spread around the world, they'd be just as diverse. The perception of there being more genetic diseases among humans may also result from the fact that we have manipulated our environment so that many of these diseases are no longer selected against effectively. Animals can't do that. A near-sighted deer with a bad sense of smell quickly becomes dinner. A wolf born with PKU can't switch to a diet lacking phenylalanine, and doesn't live long enough to have puppies. We have more choices.

Further, one would assume that the animals, as exemplars of the species, that Noah ushered into the ark did not have the opportunity to acquire any of these conditions because (in a YEC scenario) their genetic material had not yet degraded to such a point.

Now that you mention it, I'm not sure it's necessary for the ark-bound animals to carry mutations at all. I hadn't thought of this before, but now it worries me. Unless there was a supernatural suppression of mutation over the next 20 generations or so, then we might still have a problem even if every animal coming off the ark were homozygous for the best alleles at all loci.

The last measurement of our mutation rate that I heard came out to about 264 base changes per person per generation. A lot of these are between genes, and won't affect anything. But some are in genes, and do have effects. Let's be optimistic, and say that only 5 nasty mutations (rather than 264) appear per generation in animals. Brother-sister matings and cousin-cousin matings are very likely to make some of these homozygous. After a few generations, I fear that we are stuck with some unhealthy populations. Natural selection will weed out the really sick ones, but will there be enough heterozygotes to maintain the population through the genetic crisis? I'm not so sure.

[ST88]

No, the same problems do come up with animals. It's really evident with dogs, where inbreeding to maintain "pure" breeds leads to nasty conditions like hip dysplasia due to homozygous recessives. Even if we omit dogs, where humans have directed a lot of marriages for thousands of years, and look at wild populations, we still come up with similar results as for us. The rate of mutation seems to be about the same among many species of mammals, in terms of base changes per billion base pairs per year.

The mate pairings of domestic animals are almost exclusively selected by humans, which means the same problems exist with inbreeding as they do with humans. I wasn't really thinking of domestic animals like dogs, because these traits are well known.

Wild animals do breed with brothers and sisters. When undesirable recessive traits meet in a mate pairing, the offspring usually either dies quickly or else is not allowed to reproduce within the population. This can happen over and over again for pairings involving siblings. This is natural selection at work. Many species' genotype is so specialized for its particular niche that even small deviations cause it to lose one or another traits that had allowed it to occupy this niche (for example, the red spot on the beaks of certain sea gull populations lets baby gulls know where to peck to get food from the parent -- without this spot, the chick doesn't have a reference for food and will not survive long -- this individual does not reproduce effectively).

This is one of the reasons that we worry when endangered species reach low population sizes. Recovery from too small a population, even if habitat is available, is often impeded by the genetic bottleneck.

I believe you are using this argument, a valid one, incorrectly for this discussion. The relative genetic variability in a wild endangered population, like California Condors, for example, is only a concern when it gets down to a precious few from a larger population-- in this case, the few individuals happened to have the recessive trait for "dwarfism" that the once-large population probably did not have throughout. The disease is fatal almost immediately and so is not relevant to a discussion of larger natural selection. That it survived in the population at all is a result of the dynamics of recessive traits - i.e., 3 of 4 phenotypes will always survive in a strict Mendelian model (and something like 160 of 165 condor phenotypes were viable in the original captive breeding program). It may be that it was just dumb luck that this recessive trait was saved by the breeding program. But an argument could be made to classify the condor as a domestic animal for the purposes of this argument, because the traits selected for, i.e., "condorness", were the only considerations. And so the dawrfism gene was taken along for the ride much as the dysplasia gene is in certain dog breeds.

However, all of this does not apply to this discussion. At the time of Noah we can reasonably assume that there were no such traits. The precious few gathered at the flood would not have had any of these recessive traits in a YEC model.

One possibility for the seemingly greater diversity of humans is that there are so dang many of us. Perhaps, if there were as many deer spread around the world, they'd be just as diverse. The perception of there being more genetic diseases among humans may also result from the fact that we have manipulated our environment so that many of these diseases are no longer selected against effectively. Animals can't do that. A near-sighted deer with a bad sense of smell quickly becomes dinner. A wolf born with PKU can't switch to a diet lacking phenylalanine, and doesn't live long enough to have puppies. We have more choices.

I think this is incorrect. The greater diversity of human genotypes is a direct result of its pack animal status. In a pack, it is required for the members to be phenotypically diverse in order to maintain the order of the pack. Combine this with the loss of our sense of smell in favor of vision -- the identification of individual members is very important to humans, for some reason (probably has to do with family vs. other), along with the necessity for survivial in many different types of environments and you tend to see how variability itself is an adaptation.

If the above were true we would see much more variability in individual insect and fish populations, hugely successful in most cases; but I think the opposite is true. Because their designs tend to exploit large amounts of space on the planet, they are able to reproduce in vast numbers, maintaining their similar phenotypes.

Just a note about the near-sighted deer. If it survives long enough with its near-sightedness to reproduce, then can we really say that is a damaging disease within the context of natural selection?

After a few generations, I fear that we are stuck with some unhealthy populations. Natural selection will weed out the really sick ones, but will there be enough heterozygotes to maintain the population through the genetic crisis? I'm not so sure.

This would only be true if, like in the above Condor example, the recessive characteristic were present throughout the remaining population, which it is not. But even assuming that recessive characters were added at the frequency that the YEC claims, this wouldn't be true. The succeeding generations of post-flood species would have had sufficient members by the time we noticed them to have made any acquired recessive traits virtually irrelevant (barring, as you say, endangerment).