CREATURES OF THE DEEP: Scientists have recovered a surprising diversity of species from the deepest, darkest parts of the oceans.
Image: BUNZOW/CORGOSHINHO
More In This Article
-
Photo Album
Slide Show: Unusual Deep-Sea Species Documented
-
What a Plant Knows
How does a Venus flytrap know when to snap shut? Can it actually feel an insect’s tiny, spindly legs? And how do cherry blossoms know when to bloom? Can they...
Read More »
The darkest reaches of the ocean have long been thought of as a desolate biome. But as researchers send equipment down to document these mysterious depths, they are quickly learning not only that it is teaming with life, but also that it boasts surprising diversity.
More than 340 scientists from around the world have been working over the past nine years to complete the Census of Marine Life, a project that has sent out dozens of expeditions to document ocean life at all levels of the sea. Final results from the survey will be announced next October, but preliminary results about the deep-sea findings are being released early.
With some 17,650 creatures found living below 200 meters, where photosynthesis stops, (and another 5,722 living below 1,000 meters), the researchers compare the surprising amount of marine diversity with that found in tropical rainforests. Of course, in a rainforest, "it's visually overwhelming," says Robert Carney of Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge and co-leader of the Consortium for Ocean Leadership's Census project, Continental Margin Ecosystems (COMARGE). Even a mere scoop of mud from the ocean floor can contain a wealth of animals that are just millimeters long.
Slide Show: Unusual Deep-Sea Species Documented
Traditional theories of evolution and ecological niches might predict low species diversity in deep, dark marine habitats. Carney notes, however, the sheer number of newly discovered species there "is just counter to what we know about diversity." Some of the reasons for that may include the fact that many of the species are probably very old and their environments have remained stabler than others on the planet, allowing new species to evolve even as they themselves are not driven to extinction.
Beyond the curiosity-driven research that the census has enabled, the researchers also hope the data will be put to more immediate, practical use. "It's the world's largest environment," Carney says of the ocean floor. "We have a very rich system that we really have to deal with."
Even though much of the deep ocean seems out of reach to humanity, it is not entirely untouched by us, notes Odd Aksel Bergstad of the Institute of Marine Research in Norway. The oil industry is now drilling down thousands of meters and even fishing has become more of a deep-sea industry. "The management needs a better scientific basis for making the right decisions," he says.
The impacts of deep-ocean projects might be out of sight, but for researchers working on the census, they are not out of mind. Carney, who has been studying bottom-dwelling life since 1967, says, "It used to be that deep-sea searching was a fairly esoteric area of academia." But now, he notes, scientists in this arena are increasingly responsible for policy recommendations. "Because of the remoteness of the system, if you make a mistake, it's going to be a very difficult mistake to correct," he says. "The greatest threat to the ocean is ignorance of the system."
See what we're tweeting about
27 Comments
Add CommentYes I would think that the diversity of life discovered even in reaches of the planetwhere the evolution model would have predicted otherwise should give one pause for thought.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfor instance the thought expressed in the article that "Some of the reasons for that may include the fact that many of the species are probably very old and their environments have remained stabler than others on the planet, allowing new species to evolve even as they themselves are not driven to extinction." This statements begs to ask: If if the enviroment is so stable that it posese no threat to the survival of established species than what would be the driving force to bring about changes in an organism sufficient to create an entirely new species? It seams that believers in evolution have a simple solution to perserve thier beliefs, ignore the facts and just reinvent a reality that fits precocieved concepts. While categoricaly rejecting any other idea that threatens their "religious beliefs". The biggest controversies as to how evolution occured is among evolutionist themselves. Evolution has "evolved" into a confusing array of different "models" has to how it has occured, the absence of hard evidence has fostered the emergence of these concepts and there will no doubt be many more "sects" that will appear on the scene as time goes by.
You would think that the people that should be least surprised about the discoveries mentioned in the article would be evolutionist themselves. Every since Darwin's prediction that the fossil record should reveal a gradual change from one species to another failed to be true, but instead revealed an abundance species with distint characteristics with no evidence of intermediate species in the proccess of evolving from one to the other existing. Evolutionist will vehemently argue with you that they do exist of course, and will point to a paltry few examples that they say proves the proccess occured. For example a fossil of a reptillian like creature with feathers that resembles a bird. Yes the creature did exist. You can see its fossil. But do these scanty few example of fossils like this found among litterally millions of fossils prove an evolutionary change from one species to another or that simple this creature as a distint an seperate species did at one time exist. Same is true of such ape/human like fossils of which the total of them would fit in one box. Which proves nothing beyond the fact that they did exist and not a change to a new species. That they did is purely a "leap of faith" on their part.
Ugh. I know better, but....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDe Hecho, from my perspective you appear to have your mind totally made up. Are you, at least in principle, willing to agree with the idea of evolution if somebody can provide logically and empirically sound answers to your questions (and ignore your pejorative attacks)? Or are you ideologically opposed to the idea altogether? If the latter, it really seems pointless to address them or engage you at all on this topic.
" If if the enviroment is so stable that it posese no threat to the survival of established species than what would be the driving force to bring about changes in an organism sufficient to create an entirely new species? "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHerein lies the flaw in your logic. You take "environments have remained stabler than others on the planet, allowing new species to evolve even as they themselves are not driven to extinction." and turn it into the above. Your statement pretends that the environments are never-changing utopias that foster no evolution. That's not at all what the statement says. It specifically states, in poor grammar I will grant you, that the environments are "stabler". Indicating that while they DO change, they don't change quickly forcing much evolution.
Also, keep in mind that species don't just evolve because their environments change, but sometimes because they change environments. A tiny marine animal that gets caught in the shockwave of an undersea earthquake could be pushed miles out of its territory into some new area. Actually, an entire colony could have that happen, allowing the species the opportunity to thrive and evolve.
Evolution can also occur in environments that don't change at all. Mutation occurs, and if that mutation provides no detriment to the transmission of the genetic code, then it will be transmitted. The mutation may not provide and advantage, but if it's value is neutral it can be passed on.
Finally, your comments about the fossil record are nothing more than pure rhetoric from someone who hasn't bothered to think them through. You comment that there are no gradual transitions documented is simply false. There are plenty of transitional fossils, you just choose to ignore them. In fact, the best way I've heard it put it simply "to the question of fossils that prove evolution, the answer is 'they all do'" Also, the reason we haven't found EVERY transitional species is self-evident: they've evolved, they don't exist anymore. We have to rely on the fossil record, but unless we dig up every square inch of the planet to discover every fossil, we're going to have an incomplete record. Incomplete does not equal invalid.
But, beyond that, the fossil record is only one portion of the evidence in favor of evolution. Molecular genetics, for example, clearly shows the advancement of species by studying their genetic makeup.
I think this article provides a strong point on why deep sea mine-tailings disposal should be studied more carefully. I work in the mining industry and support responsible and sustainable mining.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn one mining forum I attended, someone mentioned that deep sea disposal is less damaging to the environment versus a terrestrial tailings dam (particularly if the dam will be located in a forested tropical valley, for example) since "there is NO environmentally significant benthic flora/fauna beyond 100 meters deep".
Why does everyone bother with arguing evolution with creationist? Its like arguing with a christian that the devil has some good ideas. You make yourself look like a fool because whomever believes in creationism is a fool to start with. You make long drawn out arguments that rational people would enjoy. Doubtful they read it and if they do they are looking for hole in it not to engage you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMANY people claim that science disproves the Bibles account of creation, and many help them to do so. Take for example the opinions of so-called Christian Fundamentalists. Some of these groups falsely assert that according to the Bible, all physical creation was produced in six 24-hour days some 10,000 years ago.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Bible, however, does not support such a conclusion. If it did, then many scientific discoveries over the past hundred years would indeed discredit the Bible. A careful study of the Bible text reveals no conflict with established scientific facts. For that reason, I strongly disagree with Christian Fundamentalists and many "creationists", The later term often used to apply to political movements to change laws that would give creationism equal footing with evolution as a teaching. One attacks the Bible from without the other gives them amunition to do so from their misrepasentaion of what is within.
for one example; creationists often say that the entire universe was created in six literal 24-hour days some 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. With teachings like this, they misrepresent the Bible, which says that God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning at some unstated point before the more specific creative days began. Significantly, the Genesis account shows that the expression day is used in a flexible sense. At Genesis 2:4, the entire period of six days described in the preceding chapter is spoken of as only one day. Logically, these were, not literal days of 24 hours, but long periods of time. We still use the term day similarly such as in our Grandfathers' "day". The six creative "days" merely described how things would have appeared from the standpoint of an observer on an already exisiting earth through the creative process of preparing an already existing earth and putting life on it.
Oh brother. You'll have to accept that some of us simply aren't interested in assisting you in your struggle as a creationist to make sense of the world around you. We've gone through it ourselves, found the answers you're still seeking, but have realized where the logic fails & the worlds evidence points... The day one of you guys makes a discovery, you'll have our attention. Til then, enjoy your second century world-view.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe day you overcome your need to believe "in" things, and discover that the universe (or god, if you want to call it that) plays only probability games, you'll begin to make progress. Good luck, but really, it's no ones responsibility but your own to dig yourself out of that hole. No one's gonna do it for you.
I wonder why, as evolved beings, we still feel a need to be nasty and vitriolic when there is absolutely no threat from the other person. Perhaps your morality might "evolve" a bit, because you're coming off as a moral neanderthal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder why you, as a member of an evolved species, still feel the need to be nasty and vitriolic when the other person is not any kind of threat to you. If there are other beings in the cosmos, I can see why they show no interest in getting in touch with such emotional neanderthals as us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fact of the matter is that people who go around spouting false claims about empirical knowledge, because they either fail to understand it or they choose not to understand it, are indeed a threat! They threaten to halt the progression of our understanding of the Universe, for if they manage to convince those who hear their arguments that the truth is wrong, then the truth shall forever remain buried!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThose of us who correct their misstatements do not do so merely in an attempt to enlighten them, but rather do so primarily in order to educate the third person who has yet to decide on the matter for him or herself.
For example, say that someone makes the claim that there is no evidence for evolution, or even counter-evidence against it. In the absence of any correction to this claim, people who do not already know of the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution will go about the rest of their lives thinking that none exists! It is not difficult to understand the fact that no one will ever learn the truth if we allow it to be covered up!
As for a strong show of emotion, knowledge is certainly something worth fighting for.
Also, I suggest that you consider the possibility that the other beings in the Cosmos are no more technologically capable of contacting us than we are of contacting them. Or, if they are far more advanced than us, then surely they would understand that their contacting us would result in a sudden and irrevocable change in our society. Surely their teams of astrobiologists would prefer to study us in our natural, unperturbed setting.
Can't a 'day' just stand for the point in time a project was completed successfully ? Genesis seems to me to be pointing to each event. The pond in my back garden went through many stages. it didnt transform slowly from flat ground to a well managed pond full of life smoothly but rather step by step. each step was declared 'fit for purpose' in an orderly way. also, when the electrician declairs my work on my house 'ok' - that will be the day. I suspect many 'fundamentalists' dont read and study the Bible; they just go along with an interpretation handed to them without question.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan't a 'day' just stand for the point in time a project was completed successfully ? Genesis seems to me to be pointing to each event. The pond in my back garden went through many stages. it didnt transform slowly from flat ground to a well managed pond full of life smoothly but rather step by step. each step was declared 'fit for purpose' in an orderly way. also, when the electrician declairs my work on my house 'ok' - that will be the day. I suspect many 'fundamentalists' dont read and study the Bible; they just go along with an interpretation handed to them without question.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf an archeologist finds an arrowhead made of stone He may ask who made it, or for what quarry was it intended, but he never questions whether or not it had a maker. And the reason why is obvious, design requires a designer and this evidence stands alone without the slightest hesitation that it was a product of design by an intelligence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe design of an arrowhead is quite simple a recognized shape, that has no moving parts internal or otherwise.
If the presence of design requires a designer for an arrowhead than what of the human hand, it has shape that gives evidence of purpose, in fact it is impossible to simple describe the design of a hand in terms of a shape, beyond this you must describe the systems designed to make it function as a multifaceted tool. Its skin and its systems, the skeletal system, the nervous system, the vascular systems, the muscular systems, etc etc. Does the logic break down because of an abundance of evidence of design? We dont think that a watch evolved without a maker because it has an array of sophisticated parts giving evidence of design do we? Or rather the more complicated the design the more it shouts that it had an intelligent designer and maker
Take as another example of design found in the human brain. If things evolve because of environmental pressures fostering changes, than how does evolution explain the human brain. How did evolution produce a brain that understands calculus, trigonometry, geometry, Newtonian or Einsteins physics, or quantum mechanics, or the string theory of space fabric, etc. There is every evidence if one could transport a human from just a few thousand years ago to the present time he would have no problem understanding these concepts. How did evolution produce an organ to function perfectly in an environment that had not even arrived.
You talk about overkill wrap your mind around this, if you can, Scientist have discovered that the basic component of memory exists as stored bits of information at the synapses of connecting tendrils emanating from the brains neurons.
The brain has over one hundred billion neurons and each one may have as many as 1000 synaptic connections with other cells. Now if you can take just 26 letters of the English alphabet and form an almost endless list of words simply by changing or adding to their sequences than how many thoughts could be formed from the number of connections made possible from the number of combinations possible from a hundred billion brain cells each one with a thousand connections, the answer is; the number of combinations, is a number greater than the estimated atoms in the physical universe. At the rate that we process and store information that would translate into 70. Billion years to max out the storage capacity of the human brain. But we live one billionth of that time on average. Evolutionists by their on admission have no plausible answer.
But there is a plausible answer just think about that arrowhead thing mentioned earlier and it may come to you, even if you do not have a phd. Or look in the Bible, Hebrews 3:4
Just because an archaeologist picks up a triangular shaped rock, it doesn't mean it is an arrowhead. It becomes recognized as a designed object based on evidence...chipping patterns, the shape, the type of stone, the proximity to other artifacts, known settlement patterns of various tribes..all of these bits of information feed into the decision on whether a pointy rock is actually a designed arrowhead. Conversely, the absence of this evidence and perhaps the presence of additional geological evidence might very well result in the archaeologist (or perhaps a geologist) concluding that the pointy rock in his hand is indeed just a rock that evolved into a pointy rock from a variety of geologic and natural forces. The presence of a designer is not a foregone conclusion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is through a similar pattern of evidence that we arrive at evolutionary theory by using genetic records, fossil records, vestigal anatomy, and other data. The opposition isn't with the concept of some grand designer...it is simply that the theory of evolution provides the best fit for the evidence at hand and continues to be supported as more research is done. From a simple motivational perspective, who WOULDN'T want to be the scientist who conclusively identified a grand designer?
Hello,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree that the theory of evolution can be confusing at times as not everyone agrees on everything. But, isn't that the case with ANYTHING? I can (please correct me if I'm wrong) assume that you are a Christian or other Judeo-Christian religion. Well, are there not hundreds of different iterations and versions of Christianity (because... *gasp*... they don't all agree with one another on certain things)??? And this fact alone doesn't make Christianity "incorrect" (and certainly doesn't make it true). As I said (and certainly as you know) not everyone can always agree with each other on one thing (whether it be religion or evolution... or which is better, Coke or Pepsi lol).
Also, I think that you may have a bit of a misunderstanding about how evolution works (which could have stemmed from someone explaining it to you a certain way where as someone else may explain it some other way).
This is what I mean:
The way you are describing your understanding of the theory, it sounds like you think of evolution as having an "end game."
The purpose of evolution is NOT to reach some "optimum" or "ultimate" form of a creature. Indeed, a species that seems to you to be successful and in its "optimum" state isn't done evolving yet. It will never be "done" because for every part of an animal improved, it can be further changed (perhaps in an unexpected way) to lend the animal even more dividends (perhaps at the loss of losing something else that was useful).
So to put this into context:
These sea dwelling creatures aren't in an "optimum" state (they will never be). They are STILL changing. And once one changes in a way that increases there survival, that change is permanent because that form of the animal survives longer and is more able to reproduce, which will create a new generation of animals with the same advantage (this is evolution in a nutshell {at least how I understand it}).
However, this doesn't automatically mean that the "older" version of the species will not die out (especially if the "new" species's change was advantages because it moved to a slightly different environment).
One more thing. I'm not sure where you are getting your "few to no transitional fossils" info from, because most scientific sources say otherwise (although a quick google search for "fake transitional fossils" certainly brings both bogus and legit sites either claim "fake!" or rebutting the "fake" claimers. I will check out both sides (although I've already done this several times and came out thinking some creationists are getting desperate.)
I agree that when looking at life's amazing complexity and seeming "design," it boggles the mind. Indeed, science is not there yet as far as fully explaining the phenomena of life (although its getting there!).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut, as a commenter above similarly said, if you see a triangularly shaped rock, there is evidence as to whether it was man made or just a natural phenomena.
But, it is also important to mention this:
No matter what your beliefs are, the difference between the claim that clearly someone designed a tool (perhaps a CPU or that arrow head you mention) and that clearly some designed humans, is that we have actually SEEN someone design a tool, where as we have NEVER seen ANYONE designing humans (at least while we our not advanced enough to effectively redesign ourselves, but that is a whole other topic.). We know that a human could have made an arrow head because we have SEEN it done today (or something equivalent). Many of the "proof of ID (intelligent design)" has been THOROUGHLY debunked by scientists (with real evidence) and are often just individual interpretations (or misinterpretations) of scientific discoveries.
I tell you what though. I f you can show me evidence (or a Polaroid!) of God creating Adam out of thin air and Eve out of Adam's rib (I'll really don't get that one), then I will be sold!
But kidding aside, are you at all interested in at least considering what cutting edge science has to say on the matter? Or are you (regardless of any potent scientific evidence in favor of evolution placed in front of you) firmly rooted?
I envision a programming invention whereby Comments sections have phrasal recognition so that when a creationist starts to type, the program recognizes the oft used tiresome, discredited rants and shuts down the post and will not let the creationist even continue typing let alone post the comment .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you think that the abundance of distinct life forms and the extinction of a multitude of others argues against evolution, then I fear you have not understood the concept of evolution at all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLOOKS LIKE A COCKROACH!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe pictures were very fasinating. Amazing what kind of life is all over this planet. I was looking for comments about other areas where life is and the beauty of it. Yet, the discussion about evolution/creationism took over. Maybe we should start over and discuss the amazing places where life is and how they live.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisde Hecho, you criticize evolution science for having multiple theories and schools of thought. Haven't you noticed the very many "theories" of Christianity there are and have been for about 2000 years? The Catholic and Protestant; ancient Eastern and African churches (one still worshiping in the language, Aramaic, Jesus probably spoke) and many modern fundamentalist churches are all "theories" of Christian faith. But, their differences don't invalidate Christianity as a spiritual path (my own in fact). And even St. Paul understood Genesis as poetry and metaphor; see 2 Peter 3:8.
I find the various hypotheses and theories relative to the studies of evolutionary mechanisms exciting and supportive of the overall theory of the origin of species. The underlying theory has remained pretty much the same; the proposed hypotheses of how, where, when, why change as new evidence comes in. And, tho' slowly, it does come. scientists reworking their ideas based upon new discoveries reassure me science isn't twisting the facts to fit pet theories (except, of course, for the few criminals who do). The evolutionary sciences have been following the Earth's trail of evidence and it has consistently upheld and expanded upon Darwin. New theories follow new evidence. By seeking out and following the paths of the evolution of life on earth, many once-isolated sciences are coming together to work, and we're seeing the awesome beauty of the connection of all things. the incredible diversity of creatures from the inscrutable Pre-Cambrian Ediacara to the Disneyesque "Dumbo" octopod recently discovered living in our oceans' dark abyss.
No wonder so many great scientists have also been great believers. Science and religion aren't enemies; they just answer different questions. Unwind, de Hecho, and enjoy the wonder of it all.
Can we stop going on about evolution for a millisecond? Just think, maybe, both are right and God STARTED evolution. Either way, both sides are making fools of themselves arguing off-topic on an issue of how plentiful in biodiversity the ocean floor really is. Stay on topic!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK, guys: let's pretend for the sake of being on-topic, that God started evolution, and that's how the life-forms on this planet were produced. Are we OK with that? After all, if every comment here turns into an argument in the never-ending battle between science and creation, were going nowhere with this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven if the slow pace of evolution at the bottom of the sea is somehow evidence of creation, it is only a single case. De Hecho is arguing from the particular to the general, that is, if we can find one case on 'non-evolution', we can 'prove' creation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA number of issues:
1) Proof is a mathematical/legal concept. Science offers evidence of the processes of evolution. It is not clear that creationists offers evidence of anything.
2) Most people don't understand evolution. It is a red-herring to ask for the time and place where a new species was born. One test for new species (although not readily possible) is to see whether a current member of a species could breed with some preserved ancestor, for example, a contemporary of its great, great... grandparents.
3) A disagreement with the biblical account of creation is neither to prove nor disprove the existence of any particular creator or creators, after all, the bible is just a book, written by men and women, as are the many tomes about evolution. Many cultures have many Gods of Creation - it is arrogance to assume that the biblical god is indeed THE god of creation - the amount of evidence that there is, is remarkably sketchy, and many religions have just as much evidence as to the existence of their gods. Indeed, I contend that an extremely intelligent designer would have created just one cell, and would have let the processes of evolution take care of the rest. The biblical god is clearly a hard worker, but not a very smart thinker! Put simply, the processes of evolution could have been created by God, and only observed by humankind. The writer(s) of the first two chapters of the bible were no more present on the scene than Darwin was when the first dinosaur hatched from an egg. At least we have dinosaur eggs, but the Tree of Life is, I guess, long since extinct!
4) At one point in the Bible, Jesus is asked whether he is the son of god - his reply, it is ye who say that I am - which is a remarkable avoidance of his own stricture to keep answers to simple "yea" or "nay". Even so, just because a person claims that god exists, is no evidence for that. (Luke 22:70)
5) Many cultures have an allegory for creation. It is not clear why one culture has to present its allegory as fact. But more! The creationists of the US 'bible belt' often rewrite cultural history, for example, the Yolngu of Arnhem land, to pretend they had "A Creator". If you search the anthropological record, you will discover the true number of Creators that these people had.
Here truely is the real debate... Why is it that Creationist and Evolutionists even think there is a fight? Regardless of whether or not the theory of evolution is correct, it is answering a question that has nothing to do with religion: how species change over time. If you truely believe that one God created this over a set amount of time (I'm not even touching that one...) why is it so hard for you to imagine that this same God put into place natures laws that allowed for evolution to begin with?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGod created our brains you have mentioned in the last posting. Wonderful. If something that is so based on law and order, along with everything else we can explain in this universe so far, why would he not have also created the laws that allow for change within that system? If it is a design, just as we design our technologies, wouldn't you want it to be flexible and adaptable so that it continued to evolve to meet the changes?
I'm really confused as to why Creationists believe that evolutional theories throw God out the window. If God designed everything, than he designed evolution too. Just because we can't "prove" God one way or another doesn't mean he doesn't exist. However, we aren't trying to prove God through this theory. Just that he was smart.
Ive got the best idea Get rid of all religion. Its all crap anyway
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIts so true the ignorant have the most to say
Having read the book I can find no place in it that says God didn't use evolution.In fact quite to the contrary.First read the first page.What you see is an order of creation laid out,although not perfect it is there.It also speaks of lifeforms that are fixed and unchanging,and others that have their will and are able to change over time.We also see the creation of man happening more than once.The first being the animal man,and it is this linage that the covenant is made with.God says I give them domain over all other animals and they have total control over all seed bearing plants to use as they please.there were two commandments.Be fruitful and multiply.This was on the six day for those that are reading this first page with their eyes wide open.An undescribed amount of time, several days later in Gods time.He created another man named Adam but with a different set of rules.This was because Adam he was destined to become the linage of the line of Noah,his story is of course further on in the book,and the linage continued on with David and then Jesus,and the flood described which was a local event was to destroy all the unfaithful of this linage.Not the rest of mankind around the rest of the World.Read on and you see many different tribes after the flood ending up loosing their single language they becoming many.But in the end there is simply too many other things to numerous to list here.Stop letting someone else tell you what the Bible says and read it yourself with your eyes wide open,and pay attention to what it really says.Not what someone else thinks it does.Keep it simple,and don't makes claims about it you don't understand.If someone asks you something you don't know,say you don't know.This is how most of today's Churches have gotten in the mess they are now in,by simply not telling the truth,and saying I don't know.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this