All kinds could fit (Talk.Origins)

Claim CH512:


 * Noah's ark could have carried pairs of all kinds of animals for a year.

Source: Woodmorappe, John, 1996. Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study. Santee, CA: ICR.

CreationWiki response:

While in doing his feasibility study, Woodmorappe had to make certain assumptions, not all of them valid, Talk.Origins' criticism is based almost entirely on their evolutionarily mind set and a clear bias towards inflating the number of animals beyond credibility. When viewed from a creationist perspective, it turns out that correcting for one invalid assumption solves other problems as well.

This is a typical argument made by scoffers like those at Talk.Origins. The main goal is to inflate the numbers, it is based on the purely evolutionary assumption that the observed variety arose only by accumulation of mutations over long periods of time. It ignores the affect of small inbreeding population as animals dispersed after the Flood. Under such circumstance, it is easier for those mutations that do occur to take hold, thus greatly accelerating  substitution rates. When this factor is combined with genetic recombination, Natural Genetic Engineering and gene transfer, it is clear that the presently observed variety could have come about in the few thousands of years since the Flood.

Actually in choosing to equate genus with kind, Woodmorappe was deliberately erring on the side of caution, since interbreeding experiments have shown that in many cases kind is actually equivalent to family and in rare cases more than one family. If calculated based on kind = family then Woodmorappe's estimated 16000 animals is reduced to only 2000, a reduction of a factor of eight, and thus his estimated 90% of the Ark's space is reduced to about 12%. Even if we assume half were genera and half were family that would result in 9000 animals and about 51% of the Ark's space.

The result is the correcting for Woodmorappe's error here is only a problem if one makes evolutionary assumptions.

References:


 * What are the Biblical Kinds? - NW Creation (n.d.)


 * Shapiro, J. A., Natural Genetic Engineering


 * Ashcraft, C. W., 2004. Genetic Variability by Design. TJ 18(2): 98-104.


 * Batten, D., 2000. Ligers and wholphins? What next? CEN 22(3): 28-33.


 * Wieland C., 1999. Brisk Biters. CEN 21(2): 41.


 * Wieland, C., 1992. Darwin’s Finches: Evidence Supporting Rapid Post-Flood Adaptation. CEN 14(3): 22–23.


 * Evolution from the Creation Perspective - NW Creation (n.d.)


 * Speciation - Kimball's Biology Pages, 2018 (Jan-31).


 * Wieland, C., 1997. Speciation Conference Brings Good News for Creationists. TJ 11(2): 135-136.


 * Catchpoole, D. & Wieland, C., 2001. Speedy Species Surprise. CEN 23(2): 13-15.


 * Ashcraft, C. W., Gene Hijacking: The Role of Interspecies Gene Transfer - NW Creation (n.d.)


 * Powell, K., 2002. Horizontal Gene Transfer: Genes caught Skipping from Bacteria to Beetle.

Assuming that Talk.Origins' interpretion is correct; their past track record makes this questionable; then Woodmorappe's deliberate error on the side of caution solves this problem. The result is that even assuming Talk.Origins is correct here, by erring on the side of caution Woodmorappe considered this in his calculations.
 * If kind = family then a 28% increase only raises the percentage of used Ark space to 26%.
 * If half genus and half family then a 28% increase only raises the percentage of used Ark space to 66%.

Talk.Origins' claim that this is unbiblical is based on a mistranslation and misinterpretation of Genesis 7:2. This verse is simply referring to the fact that both male and female animals went on the Ark. There is no reference to the maturity of the animals. Now they are right that in some cases taking juveniles would be impractical, if you ignore God's hand in the process. However the largest would be reptiles, and reptiles grow all their lives, and as such young adults would still be relatively small, and most are on their own from birth. Furthermore if the larger animals that could not be represented by juveniles, were actually represented in family instead of genus they would still not be a problem.

Woodmorappe was deliberately erring on the side of caution in a manner that over inflated the numbers. It is likely that many dinosaurs were represented by family not genus, and as such the discovery of a new dinosaur or other extinct genera would not be a problem, particularly given how easily it is to designate some new fossil as new genera and the impossibility of breeding experiments.

This is based on both evolutionary assumptions and misinterpretation of the Bible. As such it is another example of "your theory does not work under my theory so your theory must be wrong."

Woodmorappe was deliberately erring on the side of caution in his calculations in a manner that over inflated the numbers. This deliberate over estimation leaves room for just such problems. Furthermore Talk.Origins' claim ignores God's preserving hand, as well as the possibility that Noah had access to technology that would prevent much of the spoilage and waste they imagine.