How Many species of animals can fit on Noah's ark?

[BluePitbull]

Well, we could exclude marine animals and breeds dog/cat/other domesticated species.
How many species can fit on the ark?
How big should the ark be to hold all the land creatures?

[Tevildo]

Well, we could exclude marine animals and breeds dog/cat/other domesticated species.
How many species can fit on the ark?
How big should the ark be to hold all the land creatures?
I would recommend talk.origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html) for a scientific discussion of this and other creationism-related issues. They provide comprehensive links to Creationist sites if you want to examine the claims of the opposition.

The size of the Ark is given in Genesis 6:15 as 300 x 50 x 30 cubits, or 450' x 75' x 45'.

[Telemark]

The size of the Ark is given in Genesis 6:15 as 300 x 50 x 30 cubits
Riiiiiiiiiight.

What's a cubit.

[Tevildo]

Riiiiiiiiiight.

What's a cubit.
Young people these days don't even know what Candid Camera _is_. :)

(Sorry for going OT, but he started it! Should this be in GD, or even CS considering where it's going?)

[silenus]

The correct answer is "all of them." Duh! :D

[pbbth]

Well, are you just looking for how many you can fit on there, or are you also accounting for the room that would be required to bring food enough for all the animals? Also, why aren't any plant species being brought with to save them from destruction?

[spingears]

Riiiiiiiiiight.

What's a cubit.Reread Msg#2.
Multiply 300 cubits by 1.5 and get 450 feet.
Therefore 1 cubit = 1.5 feet.
Cubit (http://ebible.org/bible/web/glossary.htm)
.

[silenus]

Don't worry, Telemark. I got it.

"I'm gonna make it rain for a hundred days and a hundred nights."
"Hey, look. Just make it rain for forty days and nights, and wait for the sewers to back up."
"Riiiiight."

:D

[Ponder Stibbons]

In all fairness, there is a certain amount of vagueness in relation to the exact length of a cubit. According to Merriam-Webster (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/cubit) it is "usually" 1.5 feet.

[yabob]

The correct answer is "all of them." Duh! :D
Except for the unicorn ...

[Sal Ammoniac]

Isn't there a line of thought that says that Noah didn't get every species, but every genus? And how many of each creature did he take, anyway -- two, or seven? Bible says both, so why have we settled on two, in the common understanding?

[engineer_comp_geek]

What is that wooshing sound I keep hearing? Hmm... maybe this will help.
http://www.clown-ministry.com/skits/Noah-skit.html

[Chronos]

In regards to maximizing the number of species, do we have to keep the familiar creatures like cats and rats and elephants? Because they take up an awful lot of space. On the other hand, if we're starting with insects and similar tinies, we could probably get most animal species.

[Polycarp]

Except for the unicorn ...

There was green alligators and long-necked geese, some humpedty-back camels and some chimpanzees....

Seriously, some disclaimers:

1. Only a minority of Christians and some Orthodox Jews take the story literally; most understand it to be fabulistic, told for theological reasons we need not get into in this GQ thread.

2. Those who do take it literally note that Noah took two of every unclean "kind" and seven of every clean "kind" on the Ark. What a "kind" is is nowhere specified, but it seems to be more closely associated with the idea of genus than of species, and sometimes even larger taxa than that.

[Darwin's Finch]

Just grab all the beetles, and you'll at least have a majority of species.

[OldGuy]

2. Those who do take it literally note that Noah took two of every unclean "kind" and seven of every clean "kind" on the Ark. What a "kind" is is nowhere specified, but it seems to be more closely associated with the idea of genus than of species, and sometimes even larger taxa than that.

Actually Noah took 7 pairs of every clean kind. Think of how mean it would have been to have been the odd man (or woman) out if it were 7.

[Rhinocerous]

Even with two of every species, wouldn't that equate to all animals inbreeding to reproduce? Does that mean that the original pairs of animals on the arc were far superior than decendents of those animals alive today since all descendents are inherently the product of inbreeding?

Not to mention Noah and his family! Did he have to do it with his daughters and stuff in order to keep the species alive?

[Cervaise]

Not to mention Noah and his family! Did he have to do it with his daughters and stuff in order to keep the species alive?That was Lot.

[dtilque]

Not to mention Noah and his family! Did he have to do it with his daughters and stuff in order to keep the species alive?
You are probably mixing him up with Lot, who was out in the desert with only his randy daughters around.

Noah's family consisted of him, his wife, three sons, and their wives, IIRC.

[Harmonious Discord]

I have to be second at saying all of them.

Thealogicaly - God sent one pair of each, and he won't make a mistake.

Logicaly - Any animal that lives would have fit on the ark, and you didn't say all at the same time. You have to watch those wily teachers and their logic problems.

[Rhinocerous]

You are probably mixing him up with Lot, who was out in the desert with only his randy daughters around.

Noah's family consisted of him, his wife, three sons, and their wives, IIRC.

Well, there had to be inbreeding regardless. Noah's grandchildren would have to do it with their cousins and stuff.

Who's this Lot dude? He did it with his daughters?

[Colibri]

Even with two of every species, wouldn't that equate to all animals inbreeding to reproduce? Does that mean that the original pairs of animals on the arc were far superior than decendents of those animals alive today since all descendents are inherently the product of inbreeding?

But modern animals frequently show a large amount of genetic variation. Since most species would have had at most 4 alleles available (two from each member of the original pair) for most genes only a few 1000 years ago, it implies a phenomenal mutation rate in the time since.

[Blake]

Well, there had to be inbreeding regardless. Noah's grandchildren would have to do it with their cousins and stuff.

Every species inbreeds, that's why they are species. The question is simply how inbred they are. In the entire world first cousin marriages are only considered illegal and incestuous in parts of the US AFIAK. IOW it's just a cultural quirk that makes you consider that to be inbreeding. In many societies first cousin marriages were/are considered the ideal union and encouraged or even mandated.

Who's this Lot dude? He did it with his daughters?
Lot was not having a good year.
City residents try to have rape his house guests. Lot offers daughters up to be gang raped in their place. Citizens decline, then guests reveal divine powers and save themselves.
City is destroyed with fire and brimstone.
Wife is turned into a pillar of salt because she goes back to make sure she turned the oven off. Lot flees into desert with his daughters and the clothes on his back. Lives in a cave.
Daughters are at last as thick as mother. Decide whole world has been destroyed. Rather than confirming this with Father they decide to repopulate the world. To that end they get Lot drunk (with what?) and rape him, presumably repeatedly.
I think Daddy offering them up to be gang raped, seeing Mommy turned into a cruet set and seeing everyoine they had ever known vapourised may have caused some mental problems.

[Rhinocerous]

Every species inbreeds, that's why they are species. The question is simply how inbred they are. In the entire world first cousin marriages are only considered illegal and incestuous in parts of the US AFIAK. IOW it's just a cultural quirk that makes you consider that to be inbreeding. In many societies first cousin marriages were/are considered the ideal union and encouraged or even mandated.
Really? Doing it with your first cousin in not considered inbreeding? Is it biologically safe from the adverse effects of inbreeding?

[Blake]

.... it implies a phenomenal mutation rate in the time since.

God created a magical water vapour canopy around the world before the flood to protect people and animls from the harmful effects of cosmic rays. That all fell down, causing the flood. And because it fell down people and animals all mutated faster because they weren't protected from cosmic rays any more.

I read all this on Answers in Genesis so it must be right.

Of course it doesn' t quite explain where all that water went, or why the mutations apparently slowed down to today's rate after a few thousand years. But it was a magical water vapur canopy after all.

[Blake]

Really? Doing it with your first cousin in not considered inbreeding?

Excatly the oposite, it is inbreeding, but so is doing it with a random stranger. Like I said, all members of all species are engaging in inbreeding. That is what defines a species. There is insignificant genetic input from outside the population. Humans are worse than most other species. The two most distantly related human tribes are genetically more closely related than two chimpanzee tribes living 100 metres apart. No matter who you reproduce with you will be engaging in inbreeding. It doesn't matter whether it is your fist cousin or a total stranger, it will be inbreeding.

Inbreeding is an arbitrary term. You get to define how close the relationship has to be to qualify. You might set that at siblings, or first cousins or entire villages or entire continents or the entire species. It's your choice. Most cultures do not consider first cousin marriages to be incestusous or likely to result in inbreeding. In fact most states in the US don't consider it incestuous or likely to result in inbreeding.

Is it biologically safe from the adverse effects of inbreeding?

No pairing is ever biologicaly safe from the effects of inbreeding because all people are inbreeding. The adverse biological effects of inbreeding are primarily from the inheritance of two detrimental recessive genes. No child is ever safe from the inheritance of two detrimental recessive genes, and hence no pairing is ever biologically safe from the adverse effects of inbreeding.

The only question is the level of safety. First cousin marriages are somewhat more dangerous than marriage to second cousins, second cousins more risky than third and so forth. But at no point does the risk cease to exist altogether. And because all humans are umpteenth cousins to all other humans we are all inbreeding and we are all at risk of the negative effects of inbreeding.

[kanicbird]

Actually Noah took 7 pairs of every clean kind.

I though he took 2 of each preator and 7 of each prey, which kind of answers where he got the food for them.

[Rhinocerous]

Like I said, all members of all species are engaging in inbreeding.

Okay, semantics. :rolleyes:

DESPITE the fact that we are all inbreeding within the same species, repopulating the globe within such a narrow gene pool RELATIVELY SPEAKING (i.e. even though we already have a narrow gene pool) would lead to more birth defects.

The only question is the level of safety.

Right, which was my whole point to begin with.

First cousin marriages are somewhat more dangerous than marriage to second cousins, second cousins more risky than third and so forth.

Exactly, meaning that Noah’s family would have encountered far more birth defects since they were “inbreeding” with 1st cousins.

[Tevildo]

Well, there had to be inbreeding regardless. Noah's grandchildren would have to do it with their cousins and stuff.

Who's this Lot dude? He did it with his daughters?
I have read, with reference to Adam and Cain rather than Noah, but it still applies, that incest, being inevitable if you want to populate the world from a single family, was OK up until the very minute it was prohibited by Leviticus 18.

Genesis 19:30-38 for Lot's daughters taking adavantage of him. :)

[Blake]

Okay, semantics.

No, accuracy.:rolleyes:

There’s a big difference. A lot of people have the idea that inbreeding has some sort of magical cut-off line. One side of the line is inbreeding and one isn’t. That isn’t the case. It’s a matter of degrees. Once you realise that you will see why asking whether any relationship is or is not inbreeding from a biological perspective is meaningless.

This isn’t semantics, it is the only factual answer to your question.

If your point was to acknowledge that no breeding is ever safe then there was little point in you asking if first cousin breeding is always safe. The two are mutually contradictory. First cousin unions are a subset of all unions.

As for the rest of your post, within this narrative this isn't a problem.

Remember all these people ere great grandchildren or something similarly related to the first two humans, who presumably contained all human genetic diversity (let’s not worry that this is impossible, it’s story). As a result any one of them would be more genetically diverse than any million people living today.

The point is that the story in toto is farcical. But if we are prepared to accept any aspect of it then this particular objection is immediately eliminated.

Even in relaity there would;t be aproblme with birth defcts. Defects from even sibling or child-parent unions are perishingly rare in the first generation. Defects from first cousin unions are almost unheard of in one generation.

Then you need to realise that at this point in time a massive city was 10, 000 people, and most people never saw more than 100 people in their entire lives or moved more than 20 miles from their place of birth. IOW almost everyone was marrying second or third cousins. And while first cousin marriages have a an increased risk over total stranger marriages it is far, far greater than the difference between first and second cousin marriages.

In short, given the degree of consanguinity already being practiced and given that these were first cousin unions for just a single generation they certainly would not have experienced far more birth defects. It is actually doubtful if they would have experienced any at all.

The big problem in the real world would have been one of lack of diversity, not inbreeding per se. But since the narrative assumes extremely high diversity within every individual even that isn’t an issue within this context.

[Harmonious Discord]

Really? Doing it with your first cousin in not considered inbreeding? Is it biologically safe from the adverse effects of inbreeding?

How can you ask that question after it's been discussed so many times and Uncle Cecil has just updated again.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/041001.html
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/051028.html
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=341917

[samclem]

I'm not sure where to move this one, but GQ isn't where it belongs.

Let's try IMHO.

samclem GQ moderator

[Rhinocerous]

No, accuracy.
Not really. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding) “Inbreeding is breeding between close relatives.” By your definition, if a man of predominately Irish ancestry procreated with a woman of predominately Chinese ancestry, it would be inbreeding since they are both humans. By definition, it is not.[/qoute]

There’s a big difference. A lot of people have the idea that inbreeding has some sort of magical cut-off line. One side of the line is inbreeding and one isn’t. That isn’t the case. It’s a matter of degrees.
I don’t know if it’s necessarily a “magical” cutoff line, but procreation with 1st cousin = inbreeding.

Once you realise that you will see why asking whether any relationship is or is not inbreeding from a biological perspective is meaningless.
Are you married to your first cousin? Sounds like you’re trying to justify something.

If your point was to acknowledge that no breeding is ever safe then there was little point in you asking if first cousin breeding is always safe. The two are mutually contradictory.
My point was never “to acknowledge that no breeding is ever safe.” That was your point. There was a point in my asking “if first cousin breeding is always safe,” and the reason I asked was because you made is sound like it’s no problem, which is not the case.

Defects from even sibling or child-parent unions are perishingly rare in the first generation. Defects from first cousin unions are almost unheard of in one generation.
Well, if Noah’s family had to repopulate the globe, then there would be plenty of generations to allow the defects to show up.

And while first cousin marriages have an increased risk over total stranger marriages . . .
That’s my whole point. That’s it.

[NJ Kef]

I've always assumed that Noah's ark was dimensionally transcendental.

[dougie_monty]

On the basis of the dimensions--a cubit being about 1 foot 6 inches--the Ark would have measured about 350 feet long, 73 feet wide, and 30 feet high. The 19th-Century Great Eastern, which laid the transatlantic cable, is in that league, and so was the Lusitania.
More to the point, that's about 1,200,000 cubic feet of space--20 freight trains of modern size.
And there are only about 200 "species" of animals on earth that are as big as a horse or bigger, and about 2200 are no bigger than a rabbit.
Besides, the modern conception of "species" was created by biologist Grigor Mendel in the 19th Century and the "kind" mentioned in Genesis need not be the same as that. :)

[Mangetout]

In regards to maximizing the number of species, do we have to keep the familiar creatures like cats and rats and elephants? Because they take up an awful lot of space. On the other hand, if we're starting with insects and similar tinies, we could probably get most animal species.True, but if you think about it, big animals like giraffes are mostly wasted space; you could stack at least a couple of sheep under the legs of the giraffe, then fill in the gaps with various small mammals, like a dry stone wall. Smaller things like stick insects and lizards could be packed into the cracks between the small mammals.

[Blake]

“Inbreeding is breeding between close relatives.” By your definition, if a man of predominately Irish ancestry procreated with a woman of predominately Chinese ancestry, it would be inbreeding since they are both humans. By definition, it is not.

No, by definition it is, provided that I define all Eurasians as close relatives. I am quite justified in doing so since all humans are close relatives. Indeed all members of any species are close relatives.

I did explicitly cover all this in response to your original question, but I’ll do it one more time. Inbreeding is an arbitrary term. You can set the standard wherever you like. You consider that Eurasians are not closely related, someone else decides that cousins are not closely related. It’s perfectly arbitrary. By your arbitrary standard of close relatedness cousins marrying are inbreeding but Chinese and Irish is not. By His standards neither couples are inbreeding. By the standards of some cultures both unions are going to result in inbreeding. Hopefully this now demonstrates to you thatit is entirely arbitrary.

You see your definition still hasn’t made the term any less arbitrary. It may have defined it more clearly but the term “close relatives” is no less arbitrary than the term “inbreeding” itself.


I don’t know if it’s necessarily a “magical” cutoff line, but procreation with 1st cousin = inbreeding.

Cite? And no, the Wikipedia definition doesn’t cut it, unless you are bale to provide a reference that says that cousins are “Close relatives”. All you have done is arbitrarily decided that first cousins are close relatives. Why did you make the decision to draw the line there rather than at siblings or at second cousins?

As I have already said, and as Cecil says, the US is about the only country in the entire world that considers procreation with 1st cousin = inbreeding in a legal sense. It appears it is solely your cultural bias that leads you to make such a distinction.

But feel free to surprise me with a reputable reference to support your claim that procreation with 1st cousin = inbreeding.

Are you married to your first cousin? Sounds like you’re trying to justify something.

:rolleyes:

<Lisa Simpson> “Yes, I’m going to marry a cow!”
</Lisa Simpson>

Dude we are here to provide factual answers and fight ignorance. “Why don’t; you marry a cow” doesn’t go any way to achieving that goal. If you dispute my assertion that asking whether any relationship is or is not inbreeding from a biological perspective is meaningless then provide some facts or argument. Not this nonsense.
There was a point in my asking “if first cousin breeding is always safe,” and the reason I asked was because you made is sound like it’s no problem, which is not the case.

No, I never made it sound like it was no problem. You may have misinterpreted it that way, but that’s your error, not mine.

All I said, quite clearly, is that many societies consider fist cousin marriages to be the ideal union and encourage or even mandate them. No mention of whether they are perfectly safe.

Well, if Noah’s family had to repopulate the globe, then there would be plenty of generations to allow the defects to show up.

Sheesh, did you stop to think before posting that one? We are all an infinite number of generations away from some inbreeding event. If the defects had more chance of showing up as generations increased shouldn’t we all be showing the ill effects of our great^13 grandparents being cousins or even siblings?

You quite clearly have no understanding whatsoever of why inbreeding causes defects to show up. As I said quite clearly above, inbreeding causes defects primarily because it increases the chances of an individual inheriting two copies of a detrimental recessive gene. Or as Cecil puts it “marriage among close kin can increase the chance of pathological recessive genes meeting up in some unlucky individual”.

It doesn’t matter how many generations there are after an inbreeding event. If the individual didn’t inherit those dual genes from their parents then their offspring can’t inherit them either.

In the case of Noah’s family first cousins would only have had to marry in the very first generation. Thereafter it was unnecessary. No matter how many generations occurred afterwards inbreeding was no longer required.


That’s my whole point. That’s it.

Actually “first cousin marriages have an increased risk over total stranger marriages” was not your whole point. You actually claimed that “Noah’s family would have encountered far more birth defects”. That is not true. It’s as much nonsense as your claim that we have extra generations for inbreeding faults to show up.

[Rhinocerous]

Cite? And no, the Wikipedia definition doesn’t cut it, unless you are bale to provide a reference that says that cousins are “Close relatives”.

Okay (http://www.bookrags.com/sciences/genetics/inbreeding-gen-02.html)
#2 (http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=18274&only)
#3 (http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/125/2/251)
One more (http://bowlingsite.mcf.com/Genetics/Inbreeding.html)

All you have done is arbitrarily decided that first cousins are close relatives. Why did you make the decision to draw the line there rather than at siblings or at second cousins?

I didn’t draw the line there, it’s just an example of inbreeding. Are you really trying to argue that 1st cousins are not close relatives?

If you dispute my assertion that asking whether any relationship is or is not inbreeding from a biological perspective is meaningless then provide some facts or argument. Not this nonsense.

:rolleyes: Just throwing a little humor into the mix!

Sheesh, did you stop to think before posting that one?

Sheesh?

Actually “first cousin marriages have an increased risk over total stranger marriages” was not your whole point. You actually claimed that “Noah’s family would have encountered far more birth defects”. That is not true.

Actually, it was my whole point. Under which of these scenarios would Noah’s family have a higher chance of birth defects: 1) his grandchildren have children together (1st cousins), or 2) his grandchildren have children with complete strangers?

In the case of Noah’s family first cousins would only have had to marry in the very first generation.

You are assuming that Noah’s family would do everything in their power to avoid the adverse affects of inbreeding. Have you considered that their family could very easily continue to inbreed with 1st cousins in future generations? Do you think that people in Noah’s time had enough understanding of genetics to make a concerted effort to prevent 1st cousins from marrying? Other people in this thread have made reference to Lot’s daughters raping him. Apparently these Bible characters aren’t even that opposed to incest. What implication does that have on the likelihood of birth defects? It increases the chances.

It’s as much nonsense as your claim that we have extra generations for inbreeding faults to show up.

Well if they don’t show up in the first generation, which generation are they going to show up in? FUTURE GENERATIONS!