"Critical mass" of fossilized species

At some point, the fossilized record of species will reach a critical mass, a point at which it would be impossible for all of the species on record to have existed on Earth at the same time, and still have a large enough population to reproduce.

This raises a few questions: Are we near that point now? How many species living on Earth simultaneously would be required before overcrowding would force the extinction of some species to make room for the others? And what kind of backpedaling would creationists do to shoehorn their proposal into such a scenario if/when this does happen? Perhaps they would suggest that God “miracled” older species into new, cooler ones? :smiley:

Paul Yeah

Didn’t you read Genesis 10:25?

“… in his time the earth was divided …”

Clearly, this means that the planet we know and love today was in two or more chunks at some time in its history. There would have been extra exposed surface area at the ends of the Earth Chunks, which got “buried” when the chunks united. The extra species could have used the then-exposed surface regions of these chunks to live on.

When dinosaurs were around, they were itty bitty. God made their bones rock hard and super big after they died one night when he was drunk…

La La La, can’t hear you, La La La, what fossils?

I’m not sure I really understand the OP entirely. Can you explain the arguement again in more detail, step by step how you extrapolate from fossilized species to population sizes to carrying capacity and so on: and what length of “creationist” time are you using? It varies considerably, of course, creationism to creationism.

My post is making an attemt to discover whether the creationist assertion that every species that ever lived on Earth was present and able to thrive at the end of the creation event is possible.

This would depend on two things:

  1. The total number of species.
  2. The maximum number of species that could co-habitate while maintaining population.

If (1) is greater than (2), then it seems that creationism, as I understand it, is impossible. But I can hear the creationist response now… “Then, a miracle happened…”

To attempt to answer Apos’s questions:
I’m not aware of exactly how scientists estimate minimum breeding populations, so I will leave it to them to explain it. I’m also not sure how important the length of the creation event is, assuming that creationists believe that no species went exctinct during the “week” of creation. Is there a sub-species of creationists that makes this claim?

NB: I’m not a scientist or a creationist, so this entire post may be full of shit.

PaulYeah

Well, a good rule of thumb is about 34 breedable individuals as a bare minimum for a separate species. The fossil record even presently probably underestimates the number of separate species, because interbreedability isn’t necessarily represented well in fossil records.

The problem, however, is estimating what the carrying capacity of the earth is. It’s a REALLY easy thing to fudge even without bringing in creationist beliefs, and especially if you can assume god keeping harmony prior to the fall (or to the flood).

Out of curiosity, Apos, where did you get the figure of “34 breedable individuals as a bare minimum for a separate species”? The minimum viable population (MVP) is going to be dependent on a number of factors, not the least of which is the actual species in question. Here, for example, it is mentioned that at least 50 breeding pairs of Great Green macaws are necessary to conserve that species. And here it is mentioned that for some big cats, the number may be as high as 1,000 individuals. And, for yet a third example, here we find that 500 seems to be the “magic number” for many species (and in particular, whales). And, heck, for asexual or hermaphroditic species, a single individual could be sufficient to maintain that species.

Even using the high estimate of 1,000 indivduals per species, that still leaves room for a vast number of species, considering many extant species number in the billions, in terms of population. One obvious problem with all of them ever having existed simultaneously, however, is that not all were adapted to the same prevailing conditions at a given time. Climates change, and faunas (and floras) change with them (though, I suppose the determined creationist could argue that God, in His infinite wisdom, created numerous “microclimates”, suitable for each and every gosh-darned species, each “kind” neatly tucked away in its own specially-created ecological pigeon-hole. Or, alternatively, everything was initially adapted for the same, then-existing conditions, and the Fall messed everything up for everyone. But I would think this would require a new creation event, in order to now make everything “fit” its post-Fall environment).
That, and some species are just going to outcompete others for whatever limited living space is available; this would be true even given a “uniform adaptation” for the climate at that time. Thus, extinctions would almost certainly happen almost immediately (again, assuming simultaneous creation of all living things, ever), within a few generations, at most, which in turn means that every species really couldn’t have lived simultaneously with every other.

About the only way it could work is to invoke PaulYeah’s “miracle” on a massive scale, and provide all organisms with the necessary sustenance, etc., direct from God. In other words, God would have to have provided all organisms with all of their needs (not just food) until the Fall. Then, He’d still have to have altered everything to take into account the various post-Fall environs. Then, species die off in droves, leaving us with the fossils we find today!

No, you see, God maintained some species longer than others, that’s why we see them in strata today.

Maybe some of the now-extinct marine species lived in the Water Canopy above the Firmament.