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?

[Jose]

ST88--

You make good points! I'll have to do more homework.

To quote a famous personage, let me say this about that:

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.

This is the real issue, isn't it? The YEC model has inherent assumptions that "things were different" than they are today. There wouldn't have been mutations, so we're safe.

I still stand by my genetic bottleneck concern, though. Perhaps I can express myself better thus:

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...

When the animals come off the ark two by two, and go off to multiply (except for the adders, of course) inbreeding will occur. Initially, we're OK because of the mutational cleansing of the pre-flood world. In the post-flood world, though (where, according to the YEC model, we are today), mutations become relevant. At the second generation, they begin to appear.

We can probably even use biblical information to calculate the mutation rate. Following Usher, we can put a date on the disembarkment from the ark. At that time, we had two of each species, and no mutations. Now we have gazillions of each species, and lots of mutations. All we need to do now is get an estimate of population size and genetic variation, and we can divide "total mutations now extant" by "years since disembarkment."

But, we don't have the data to do this, so we can't actually make the measurement. There are a few studies on single genes in natural populations (e.g. Kreitman's analysis of ADH alleles in Drosophila), which indicate that a great many alleles exist. It's not reasonable to extrapolate from single genes to the whole genome, since different genes are under different selection pressures, but the data suggest that overall, there must be vast numbers of mutations within populations. [hmmm...say, about 30,000 genes per mammalian species (about like us), and, say, 10 alleles per gene (much less than ADH), gives us about 300,000 mutations. Say about 5000 years since disembarkment, and we have a mere 60 mutations per year...]

We can also use current estimates of mutation rate, as I suggested before. My guess is that this estimate will come out lower than the estimate arrived at as mutations/years-since-disembarkment. [about 264 per person per generation, with a generation time of about 20 years, gives about 13 mutations per year...]

I am still left with the concern that the mutation rate is high enough to cause problems if we start with only two individuals. The concern is heightened by the YEC model that there is no such thing as a beneficial mutation, and that all mutations are deleterious.

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.

Within a "pack" of humans, diversity is relatively slight compared to the diversity we see if we look worldwide. This is one of the things that allows us to distinguish "people like us" from "others." But, I would turn around the notion of diversity being present because it is necessary for survival in many environments. Rather, I'd argue that, as we walked out of Africa and entered different environments, selection favored those mutations that enabled survival therein. Perhaps, if we'd stayed in one constant environment, we'd still be "tuned" to that particular environment, as a result of selection against mutations that were helpful eslewhere. That is, much of the diversity is a result of entering many environments.

[Skin color is a case in point, as you know. Dark skin is advantageous where there is a high flux of UV, as in equatorial Africa. When we migrated to northern Europe, though, it was a disadvantage because we couldn't manufacuture adequate vitamin D. So, mutations that turned off melanin production were selected for. As we migrated across the land bridge into the Americas, and down toward the equator again, we picked up new mutations for melanin production. They were not strict reversion of the earlier mutations, of course--that would be pretty unlikely. Instead, a heightened tanning response showed up, and was selected for. In this case, the migration into new environments was responsible for selecting for the particular variations we now have. Had we stayed in Africa (as some of us did), selection would have kept us dark, because there, dark is best.]

And, of course, once we split up into many different packs going in different directions, genetic drift was also free to operate, making each pack somewhat different from the others. Had we stayed in a single pack, and swapped alleles, we'd be much more similar.

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).

Certainly, by the time we noticed them, there were large populations. My concern is the space between disembarkment (2 individuals) and the large population. I suppose the thing to do is model it mathematically, and determine just how high the mutation rate has to be to cause the problem I imagine. Maybe it's not as bad as I thought. Or, maybe it's worse.

Either way, though, it doesn't answer the question of what the carnivores ate after the flood.

[ST88]

Either way, though, it doesn't answer the question of what the carnivores ate after the flood.

Genesis 7:2
"You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female."
NAS

As I understand the rule of thumb definition for clean and unclean, the clean animals have the cloven hoof and are strict herbivores. The carnivores would be the animals that were kept by two and the clean animals would be kept by sevens. In my research I've come to the conclusion that "by sevens" means seven pairs -- i.e., 14 individuals of one species (otherwise, there would be 3 males, 3 females and a hermaphrodite ). Could the diet of carniverous animals be the reason for this large number?

The previous conversation about domestic vs. wild animals may have relevance here. If there were seven times more herbivores, then their genetic type would not be harmed even if there were recessive traits. Seven pairs should be quite enough to perpetuate a species and still be food for the remaining carnivores. Also, don't discount the idea that there could have been amorous activities among the animals in the ark.

Genesis 8:19
Every beast, every creeping thing, and every bird, everything that moves on the earth, went out by their families from the ark.
NAS

This may just be semantics or a translation issue, but families could mean that there was some reproduction going on among the shorter-gestation mammals. Rats and mice have gestation periods of about three weeks. So there could have been a great number of just these animals (leaving aside many other types) leaving the ark upon landfall, providing more than enough prey for the smaller carnivores.

[Jose]

You've solved all of the problems at once!

Mice.

It worked in Never Cry Wolf, so it can easily have worked after the flood.

But now you've raised another question...what did Noah do about the nematodes? How many self-fertilizing hermaphrodites was he supposed to take aboard? It would be hard to sort them into males and females...

[anchorman]

Our we to assume that there was no breeding that took place on the ark?
Im sure there must have been a lot of rabbits for lions to eat. And because they are slower than A deer they may have been the food of choice for a lost of meat eaters.

[potwalloper]

If we set aside for a moment the fact that the "flood" is a ludicrous concept, presumably the carnivores would have eaten the hundreds of thousands of tons of rotting carcases (animals and people) that would have washed up on the land once the flood subsided and the genocide was complete (unless we are saying that they all somehow dissolved in the water).

Plenty of food for a few carnivores methinks...

[Oolon Colluphid]

If we set aside for a moment the fact that the "flood" is a ludicrous concept, presumably the carnivores would have eaten the hundreds of thousands of tons of rotting carcases (animals and people) that would have washed up on the land once the flood subsided and the genocide was complete (unless we are saying that they all somehow dissolved in the water).

Plenty of food for a few carnivores methinks...

Not really. The flood lasted a whole year. Now, I’m not sure how long it takes a corse to decompose when soaked in mildly saline water* then sitting around on a mudbank for a month or two, but I somehow doubt it’s slow enough to leave much that’s edible.

* I’ve yet to hear how saltwater fish coped with the miles-deep influx of fresh(?) water... or what happened to the freshwater fish when the salt water got mixed in with their normal habitat (let alone how corals survived!). Flood proponents don’t seem to have heard of osmoregulation.

[potwalloper.]

Not really. The flood lasted a whole year. Now, I’m not sure how long it takes a corse to decompose when soaked in mildly saline water* then sitting around on a mudbank for a month or two, but I somehow doubt it’s slow enough to leave much that’s edible.

There are a number of factors that would need to be taken into account when considering this, including the degree of salinity and the temperature of the water. A corpse was discovered at the bottom of a lake in Scotland that was well preserved in the very cold and slightly saline water - the best estimate was that it had been there for nearly 18 months.

Now bloated corpse may not be the tastiest meal - however as needs must...

This should not, of course, divert us from the fact that there is no objective evidence to support the hypothesis of a global flood and a wooden ship that preserved the genomes of every species on earth - indeed the concept is so ridiculous that I feel the need for a large glass of single malt!

[dangerdan]

I can think of a number of ways carnivores could have survived after the flood.

-perhaps God miraculously made protein based food for them to eat temporarily. Like big blocks of hamburger patties.

-perhaps God miraculously made them temporary herbivores.

-perhaps God miraculously nourished them so they didn’t have to eat anything at all!

-perhaps God miraculously slowed down time according to the carnivores, so time moved at 1/3rd the rate of plant eaters, so there was plenty of food before too long for the carnivores (though obviously God would have to speed up the carnivores time again so they could actually catch the pray…I mean, you got to be rational about it).

[Colter]

I can think of a number of ways carnivores could have survived after the flood.

-perhaps God miraculously made protein based food for them to eat temporarily. Like big blocks of hamburger patties.

-perhaps God miraculously made them temporary herbivores.

-perhaps God miraculously nourished them so they didn’t have to eat anything at all!

-perhaps God miraculously slowed down time according to the carnivores, so time moved at 1/3rd the rate of plant eaters, so there was plenty of food before too long for the carnivores (though obviously God would have to speed up the carnivores time again so they could actually catch the pray…I mean, you got to be rational about it).

Or here is another posibility;

THE FLOODS IN MESOPOTAMIA
The river dwellers were accustomed to rivers overflowing their banks at certain seasons; these periodic floods were annual events in their lives. But new perils threatened the valley of Mesopotamia as a result of progressive geologic changes to the north.

For thousands of years after the submergence of the first Eden the mountains about the eastern coast of the Mediterranean and those to the northwest and northeast of Mesopotamia continued to rise. This elevation of the highlands was greatly accelerated about 5000 B.C., and this, together with greatly increased snowfall on the northern mountains, caused unprecedented floods each spring throughout the Euphrates valley. These spring floods grew increasingly worse so that eventually the inhabitants of the river regions were driven to the eastern highlands. For almost a thousand years scores of cities were practically deserted because of these extensive deluges.

Almost five thousand years later, as the Hebrew priests in Babylonian captivity sought to trace the Jewish people back to Adam, they found great difficulty in piecing the story together; and it occurred to one of them to abandon the effort, to let the whole world drown in its wickedness at the time of Noah's flood, and thus to be in a better position to trace Abraham right back to one of the three surviving sons of Noah.
The traditions of a time when water covered the whole of the earth's surface are universal. Many races harbor the story of a world-wide flood some time during past ages. The Biblical story of Noah, the ark, and the flood is an invention of the Hebrew priesthood during the Babylonian captivity. There has never been a universal flood since life was established on Urantia. The only time the surface of the earth was completely covered by water was during those Archeozoic ages before the land had begun to appear.

But Noah really lived; he was a wine maker of Aram, a river settlement near Erech. He kept a written record of the days of the river's rise from year to year. He brought much ridicule upon himself by going up and down the river valley advocating that all houses be built of wood, boat fashion, and that the family animals be put on board each night as the flood season approached. He would go to the neighboring river settlements every year and warn them that in so many days the floods would come. Finally a year came in which the annual floods were greatly augmented by unusually heavy rainfall so that the sudden rise of the waters wiped out the entire village; only Noah and his immediate family were saved in their houseboat.

These floods completed the disruption of Andite civilization. With the ending of this period of deluge, the second garden was no more. Only in the south and among the Sumerians did any trace of the former glory remain.

The remnants of this, one of the oldest civilizations, are to be found in these regions of Mesopotamia and to the northeast and northwest. But still older vestiges of the days of Dalamatia exist under the waters of the Persian Gulf, and the first Eden lies submerged under the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea. Urantia Book 1955

[turtleguy]

carnivores eat more than meat. i have turtles and dogs and they're carnivores, they eat just about anything, they are domesticated which adds a lot to what they will eat but i bet you could feed a undomesticated animal something other than meat. my grandfather has a pet fox that just comes up every night and my grandfather gives him table scraps which is not good but that little fox will eat anything!