If all kinds started with two[1] individuals, and then diversified for the same amount of time with similar mutation rates, then the current level of diversity in each kind would depend mostly on the initial diversity of the two[1:1] individuals and the current population. Levels of interbreeding and isolation don’t affect the calculations.
Geographic isolation happens on continents too, due to rivers, mountain ranges, deserts and other variations in environment leading to ecosystem/biome boundaries. Any effects of a supercontinent or limited geographic isolation prior to the Ark are limited if there is a bottleneck of two individuals from each kind. If anything, limited pre-flood isolation would result in those two individuals being less heterozygous, and post-flood diversity between kinds being more consistent.
I see you haven’t commented on the ark occupants not having created heterozygosity, nor on Noah’s post-flood cull.
Examples that are consistent with the current model will never make it look weak, no matter how many you find.
Why would there be two or 6? No numbers specified, except for homo sapiens.
Why would there be? It seems obvious to me that there is programming that allows the genome to change. But also why would mutation rates be similar?
As far as animal sacrificing, if that’s what you’re referring to, surely the animals had offspring on the ark.
Ok, some created heterozygosity would be lost to drift. Is there something else I should notice?
Ok, so what exactly does the evolutionary model predict about interbreeding between species in the same family? And what does it predict about heterozygosity, survivability, and reproductive ability of a hybrid of highly diverged species? This is a question for all who have commented.
All we know is based on previous experiences with hybrids, that the likelihood of successful hybridism seems to go down the more diverged the two species that come together to produce a hybrid are.
But that’s just a basic inference of likelihood from observation: the probability of sterility (or other problems) goes up the more diverged they are. Spanning the entire range from total reproductive compatibility, to total incompatibility (no hybrids are ever observed).
That neither entails that no hybrids between very diverged species should ever exist, nor that they can’t also turn out to still be fertile and able to live. Just that the more diverged the parents species are, the rarer the hybrids and, on average, the less likely they are to be fertile.
To really predict something about hybrids from evolutionary theory would require an incredibly detailed knowledge of the molecular and cellular mechanisms of reproduction, development, and so on, that we mostly just don’t have. Not that such predictions aren’t possible in principle, science just hasn’t advanced to the level were we would be able to predict with high accuracy the fitness and fertility of a hybrid individual produced from two specific individuals from different species.
For that reason the mere observation of a hybrid between two different lineages can’t constitute an incompatibility or a problem. All we could say is that such individuals should, on average, be comparatively more rare than hybrids between less diverged species. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
Let’s note that @thoughtful has no better prediction regarding what sort of hybrids should be found. Sometimes two species in the same genus can hybridize; sometimes they can’t. Sometimes two species in the same family can hybridize; sometimes they can’t.
The evolutionary model is a generalization of what is observed. It does not tell nature how to behave, nature informs the model. Many examples of wild hybridization exist, and these are not in any way awkward or challenging to mainstream biology. Even hardened baraminologists do not regard hybrid ability to be the end all for kind identification.
Jeanson’s model is all about limiting the number of animals on the ark and compressing the timeline so that everything could be wiped out 4500 years ago. It has zip for observational support. It is plain from archaeological depictions of nature such as from Egypt, cave paintings, remains from permafrost and tar pits, the fossil record in general, and even distinctive descriptions in the Old Testament, that animals presented as modern phenotypes back to and past the purported time of Noah, so his whole argument is moot.
As Neanderthals are divergent, and those of us in northern latitudes carry some small percent of hybridization with them, you may look within for some insight to your questions.
Because mutation rates are similar across different species. They’ve been measured.
Not according to the major professional creationism advocates, all of whom suggest the animals were placed into some form of suspended animation (in order to avoid having to deal with food/water requirements, predation and having offspring).
Firstly, that the heterozygosity of animals entering/leaving the ark is not created heteozygosity.
Secondly, all the other factors that render the Ark scenario impossible, such as available space, post-flood dispersion, ecosystem re-establishment, lack of geological evidence, lack of genetic evidence, lack of historical evidence, physical impossibility, etc.
Not a lot. Family isn’t a consistent classification, since there’s no actual test for whether two species are in the same family, just judgement.
Basically, that the further two species have diverged, the lower the likelihood of successful reproduction, and the lower the viability of any offspring.
Searched a few days ago; as far as I can tell, that evidence doesn’t exist because hybrids haven’t been categorized that way as far as. I found this lovely Avian hybrid website though. Don’t have time to go through all the research to categorize them by divergence time, even for the birds. https://avianhybrids.wordpress.com/
I don’t even know what you’re saying here.
Give an example of a baramin phenotype that creationists have described and we have not found in the archaeological record.
Here’s one study that found similar mutation rates across mammalian genomes:
Knowledge of the rate of point mutation is of fundamental importance, because mutations are a vital source of genetic novelty and a significant cause of human diseases. Currently, mutation rate is thought to vary many fold among genes within a genome and among lineages in mammals. We have conducted a computational analysis of 5,669 genes (17,208 sequences) from species representing major groups of placental mammals to characterize the extent of mutation rate differences among genes in a genome and among diverse mammalian lineages. We find that mutation rate is approximately constant per year and largely similar among genes. Similarity of mutation rates among lineages with vastly different generation lengths and physiological attributes points to a much greater contribution of replication-independent mutational processes to the overall mutation rate. Our results suggest that the average mammalian genome mutation rate is 2.2 × 10-9per base pair per year, which provides further opportunities for estimating species and population divergence times by using molecular clocks.
The paper is over 20 years old, the introduction mentions rates are all over the place (so no consensus) and I wouldn’t call a computational analysis with evolutionary assumptions a mutation measurement.
Age doesn’t mean invalidity. But here’s a more recent paper:
Based on direct observations of 55 mutation events in a three-generation pedigree of flycatchers, we estimated the spontaneous rate of germline mutation to be 4.6 × 10−9 (3.4 × 10−9–5.9 × 10−9) per site per generation or 2.3 × 10−9 (1.7 × 10−9–3.0 × 10−9) per site per year. This is very similar to a point estimate based on divergence at fourfold degenerate sites in the lineage leading to zebra finch (2.2 × 10−9 per site per year) (Nam et al. 2010), which like flycatchers belongs to the order Passeriformes. It is somewhat higher than point estimates obtained for Galliformes, including chicken and turkey, based on intronic divergence (1.3 × 10−9) (Axelsson et al. 2004) and divergence at fourfold degenerate sites (1.9 × 10−9) (Nam et al. 2010).
Be aware that some of the numbers therein are per generation, not per year, so aren’t directly comparable.
Also be aware that this is a direct assessment using the genomes of multiple generations, and does not rely on ‘evolutionary assumptions’.
