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?

[Corvus]

Not only that, but what did the herbivores eat after they stepped off the boat when presumably it had been raining for 40 days. Not only would plants have died, but if most of the world's fossils were created through the flood event, most would also be buried.

[otseng]

I had not honestly thought about this before. So after consulting with some people about this, I've formulated a theory.

All the animals that stepped off the ark were herbivores.

According to Gen 1:29-30
"And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, every green herb for meat: and it was so."

So mankind and animals were given fruits and vegetables to eat.

It was only after the flood that God said for man to eat animals.

Gen 9:3
"Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things."

And it was also at this time that animals would be "punished" for killing humans.

Gen 9:5
"And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man."

So, animals didn't apparently prey on humans prior to the flood.

The way some animals became carnivores was through micro-evolution. Animals had to adjust to the new environment after the flood.

Vegetation was abundant, varied, and plentiful prior to the flood. We see this in the fossil record. Vegetation was all the animals needed to eat. After the flood, vegetation is limited and boring and not so plentiful. We see this by the selection of vegetables on our dinner plate.

In order to cope with this drastic decrease in vegetation, some animals adapted to this new environment by slowly becoming carnivores/omnivores.

[Corvus]

I had not honestly thought about this before. So after consulting with some people about this, I've formulated a theory.

All the animals that stepped off the ark were herbivores.

That bible passage tells us that every animal prior to the flood was herbivorous, but if most of the world's fossils, including those abundant dinosaurs, were created through the flood, then we know carnivores existed prior before the animals left the ark. We know the remains of dinosaurs like tyranosaurus rex are carnivores, not only by their teeth, but by the skeletons and bones of other creatures found inside them.

The way some animals became carnivores was through micro-evolution. Animals had to adjust to the new environment after the flood.

This doesn't sound like micro-evolution. In order to become carnivores, herbivores would have to change their jaws from gnashing implements to biting and tearing tools, their digestion systems would have to change to accomodate the richness of meat, and they would have had to change their structures from gatherers/scroungers to hunters/scavengers. This is macro-evolution in a very short space of time.

So the snake in Eden ate berries and fruits? I suppose it could have swallowed them whole.

[otseng]

I'm still processing this new theory, so there's much to be explored. We'll see where this theory goes.

That bible passage tells us that every animal prior to the flood was herbivorous, but if most of the world's fossils, including those abundant dinosaurs, were created through the flood, then we know carnivores existed prior before the animals left the ark. We know the remains of dinosaurs like tyranosaurus rex are carnivores, not only by their teeth, but by the skeletons and bones of other creatures found inside them.

Sharp teeth doesn't necessarily mean carnivores. Panda bears have sharp teeth, yet are herbivores.

T Rex had skeletons and bones inside them? How were they able to determine that? And even if T Rex ate animals, wouldn't it have discarded the bones? Most animals don't eat the bones of other animals. And even if they do, the bones would've had to have been broken up to go down the throat. And the bones that do make it down the throat would be digested and broken down.

This doesn't sound like micro-evolution. In order to become carnivores, herbivores would have to change their jaws from gnashing implements to biting and tearing tools, their digestion systems would have to change to accomodate the richness of meat, and they would have had to change their structures from gatherers/scroungers to hunters/scavengers. This is macro-evolution in a very short space of time.

I define macro as evolving into another "species". So these adaptations would still be micro.

Also, perhaps the animals that became carnivores already had in themselves the requirements to process meat (sharp teeth, digestion system) and didn't really need to evolve.

So the snake in Eden ate berries and fruits? I suppose it could have swallowed them whole.

And perhaps eggs also.

Another thought, in Gen 1, there is no reference to marine animals being herbivores. So marine animals could be carnivores prior to the flood.

[Corvus]

I'm still processing this new theory, so there's much to be explored. We'll see where this theory goes.

That bible passage tells us that every animal prior to the flood was herbivorous, but if most of the world's fossils, including those abundant dinosaurs, were created through the flood, then we know carnivores existed prior before the animals left the ark. We know the remains of dinosaurs like tyranosaurus rex are carnivores, not only by their teeth, but by the skeletons and bones of other creatures found inside them.

Sharp teeth doesn't necessarily mean carnivores. Panda bears have sharp teeth, yet are herbivores.

The sharp teeth are for the purpose of cutting bamboo. These panda bears also have large, flat molars for crushing the tough plant. It's also important to note that it's believed the panda was once omnivorous, not just herbivorous.

T Rex had skeletons and bones inside them? How were they able to determine that? And even if T Rex ate animals, wouldn't it have discarded the bones? Most animals don't eat the bones of other animals. And even if they do, the bones would've had to have been broken up to go down the throat. And the bones that do make it down the throat would be digested and broken down.

Maybe not skeletons, but bones, definitely. I'm not finding many pages on google with the search terms "dinosaurs + eaten", and if you have a better search query for me to use, do tell. But I managed to catch these:

Half-eaten ichthyosaurs and teeth marks in plesiosaur flippers are clear evidence of their voracious appetites. http://www.abc.net.au/dinosaurs/fact_fi ... urodon.htm

Baryonyx was an unusual predatory dinosaur that had a huge (over 35 cm or 14 inches long) hook-shaped claw on each of its thumbs. Its jaws resembled those of a crocodile. Partially digested fish remains were found in one specimen's belly. Because of these features, some paleontologists conclude that its favourite food was fish.
http://www.geocities.com/raysengineerin ... ryonyx.htm

This much larger Sinosauropteryx specimen of what appears to be a more mature or adult animal was discovered in 1997. The fossil contains the remains of the creature’s last meal, the jawbones of an early mammal.

Most early theropod dinosaurs retained the meat-eating habits inherited from the distant ancestor they share in common with living crocodilians.
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/exhibits/cfd/CFDsino.html

How do palaeontologists know what dinosaurs ate? They can study their teeth, jaws and body type through the fossil remains of their bones, but there are other ways of learning the dietary habits of these ancient animals. In some cases, a fossil dinosaur contains the remains of its last meal. For example, one Compsognathus fossil clearly showed the remains of a lizard in its stomach. But this kind of discovery is rare – stomach contents are not often fossilized along with the animal.
http://rbcm1.rbcm.gov.bc.ca/programs/di ... _dung.html

An exceptionally large coprolite (fossilized feces) discovered in Saskatchewan, Canada provides direct evidence of dinosaurian carnivory. The specimen was found in the 65 million year old Frenchman Formation near the town of Eastend by crews of the Royal Saskatchewan Museum. Dinosaur dung is not common, so Timothy T. Tokaryk (supervisor of the RSM Fossil Research Station, a satellite facility of the Royal Saskatchewan Museum) contacted paleobiologist Karen Chin (a visiting scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey) who applied her expertise in coprolite research to the analysis of the specimen.
http://geology.wr.usgs.gov/king-sized-coprolite.html


Not all dinosaurs were big lumbering monstrosities. Rex's huge maw could have easily picked up a smaller dinosaur and swallowed it whole or relatively whole. A rapid death/burial before or during digestion could easily have given us bone remains inside their skeletons. I remember seeing things like this in the news a while ago.

Feed some chicken wings to a dog and you'll see how bones can be a tasty and nutritious treat.

This doesn't sound like micro-evolution. In order to become carnivores, herbivores would have to change their jaws from gnashing implements to biting and tearing tools, their digestion systems would have to change to accomodate the richness of meat, and they would have had to change their structures from gatherers/scroungers to hunters/scavengers. This is macro-evolution in a very short space of time.

I define macro as evolving into another "species". So these adaptations would still be micro. [/quote]

I would classify it as macro-evolution because it's essentially splitting the species into two groups, herbivores and omnivores/carnivores. Before too long, their biology should change them enough so that they wouldn't be able to reproduce.

Also, perhaps the animals that became carnivores already had in themselves the requirements to process meat (sharp teeth, digestion system) and didn't really need to evolve.

I'm not sure this could work. Creatures like goats have sharp teeth, but

So the snake in Eden ate berries and fruits? I suppose it could have swallowed them whole.

And perhaps eggs also.

Isn't that still being carnivorous? The passage says the green things were there for meat and makes no mention of eggs just as it makes no mention of appetites for red meat. You can't allow one and not the other.

Another thought, in Gen 1, there is no reference to marine animals being herbivores. So marine animals could be carnivores prior to the flood.

One point I was just about to make.

[otseng]

I would classify it as macro-evolution because it's essentially splitting the species into two groups, herbivores and omnivores/carnivores. Before too long, their biology should change them enough so that they wouldn't be able to reproduce.

Can you give an example of an animal that became a different species because it changed what it ate?

One way this theory would fail is if there are animals that can only eat meat and cannot process vegetation. I was trying to think of any land animals that fit this. One that comes to mind are spiders. However, spiders can live a long time without food, even up to a year. Are there any other animals that you can think of?

[perspective]

Feed some chicken wings to a dog and you'll see how bones can be a tasty and nutritious treat.

For goodness sakes! DON'T feed chicken bones to dogs! This is very dangerous for the dog - the bones splinter and can become lodged in their esophoguses or digestive tracts. We all know not to give poultry bones to dogs. Only steak bones - pork, etc.

[Corvus]

Feed some chicken wings to a dog and you'll see how bones can be a tasty and nutritious treat.

For goodness sakes! DON'T feed chicken bones to dogs! This is very dangerous for the dog - the bones splinter and can become lodged in their esophoguses or digestive tracts. We all know not to give poultry bones to dogs. Only steak bones - pork, etc.

Actually, raw chicken wings are very pliable and soft. It's only when you cook them that they become hard and splinter. Raw chicken bones are a good treat. Many dog breeders feed their dogs mainly on a diet of chicken carcasses. Sure, raw chicken has bacteria like e coli, but dogs have a more robust immune system that can tolerate the sort of stuff humans can't.

[Corvus]

I would classify it as macro-evolution because it's essentially splitting the species into two groups, herbivores and omnivores/carnivores. Before too long, their biology should change them enough so that they wouldn't be able to reproduce.

Can you give an example of an animal that became a different species because it changed what it ate?

No. You see, I presuppose that you can't feed a herbivore meat - for long periods of time - without changing its biology significantly enough to call it a different species, or at least a different genus. I actually don't see any difference between micro and macro-evolution. One occurs above the level of species, one within the level of species.

One way this theory would fail is if there are animals that can only eat meat and cannot process vegetation. I was trying to think of any land animals that fit this. One that comes to mind are spiders. However, spiders can live a long time without food, even up to a year. Are there any other animals that you can think of?

Some big cats, like lions and tigers, I believe, are strictly carnivorous. Crocodiles too, though there has been an uncomfirmed account of someone seeing a nile crocodile eat some vegetation.

One interesting thing to note is that we know some dinosaurs swallowed stones in order to help them digest food - vegetable and meat.