He has emailed the following and suggested it be posted on here (he does not currently have access):
Young Earth Creationism Predicts Greater Genetic Diversity in Clean vs. Unclean Animals
YECs: Here's your big chance to demonstrate that "creation science" is "true science" (as you often claim) by validating the predictive value of Young Earth Creationism.
I should point out that the Hebrew exegesis issues surrounding the number of CLEAN ANIMALS are complex. No doubt the ancient audience understood the subtleties of the phrasing concerning the numbers of clean animals taken aboard the ark. Thousands of years later, with no native speaker of ancient Hebrew to interview, we struggle to get the numbers exactly right. Accordingly, scholars and average readers of the Noah's Flood pericope consider TWO possible interpretations:
Consult my previous post* for detailed breakdowns on Clean versus Unclean Animals. In general, cud-chewing mammals with cloven hooves, scaled-and-finned fish, non-meat-eating birds, and grasshoppers/locusts were clean animals while other mammals and birds along with all reptiles and amphibians were considered unclean. Just one mated pair of various of all sorts of unclean animals were taken aboard the ark. I have also demonstrated in the past that "every kind of animal" is no more all-inclusive as English language expressions such as "He's an amateur mechanic with every kind of tool in his garage" and "Noah had all sorts of animals on the ark."
A) Seven of each kind of Clean Animal was taken aboard the ark.
In many scriptures we are told that the best MALE specimen was sacrificed. Therefore, many Bible readers have assumed that three mated pairs of each clean animal type was taken on board the ark in order to multiply after the flood while the extra male was to be sacrificed after Noah's family disembarked the floating warehouse. (The well-known phrase "two by two" reflects the Hebrew text, "two two", a reference to a queue of pairs. RESULT: SIX reproducing animals contributing to the population after one mail was sacrificed.
B) Seven PAIRS of each type of Clean Animal was taken aboard the ark.
One male would be sacrificed leaving seven females and six males to multiply after the flood to help repopulate the flooded ERETZ ("region", "land") and thereby maximize the replenishment of domesticated and food-producing animals. RESULT: THIRTEEN reproducing animals contributing to the population after one male was sacrificed.
I've never conducted a thorough survey, but it appears that Ken Ham and many of the major "creation science" ministries have always assumed Interpretation B: a breeding population of THIRTEEN following the flood. (Of course, virtually all Young Earth Creationists believe Noah's Flood was PLANET-WIDE so they would reject my reading of the text wherein only Noah's ERETZ ("land", "region") was flooded and therefore Noah's stock would eventually intermix with populations outside the flooded area.
I should mention that just as a peer-reviewed scientific paper often requires dozens of pages of careful analysis of the evidence to establish a particular conclusion. Biblical scholarship is no different. I could easily generate 60+ pages of evidence and comparative analysis along with a summary history of the Hebrew exegesis involved in quantifying the Clean Animals taken aboard the ark according to the Genesis text.
It is obvious that whether the number of reproducing Clean Animals was SIX or THIRTEEN, the diversity of Noah's breeding stock of Clean versus Unclean animals should be reflected today in genetic diversities reflecting either 3:1 or 7:1 approximately. Considering that Ken Ham proudly announced the expertise of his Answers in Genesis' stable of fully-sponsored "baraminologists", Steve's complaint of insufficient funds to make possible "creation science" research papers and scientific discoveries shouldn't be a problem. Dr. Georgia Purdom could take up my challenge of demonstrating that the Bible fully predicted a greater genetic diversity in CLEAN versus UNCLEAN animals. [Georgia, you've whined on past occasions when Google Alert warned you that I was criticizing you and your baraminologist colleagues. This time, when you complain to your Answers in Genesis audience without providing a link so that your readers can read my complete posts instead of your misleading summary, I hope you will acknowledge the validity of my challenge and show us that your "creation science" can rise to the challenge. Does it have the predictive value of "true science" or not? Are you all talk or do you actually "do true science"?
Young Earth Creationists, you should lobby your favorite "creation scientists" to accept my challenge and to publish their research which verifies that Clean Animals are indeed more genetically diverse by at least a factor of three if not six or seven!
* [I think he is referring to this previous message]
I so hope Dr. Georgia Purdom sees my challenge to her in my latest Amazon post. She was so angry about one of my past challenges to her AiG stable of "baraminologists" and she whined to AiG readers a few days later. Of course, they never provide actual LINKS to webpages they complain about----because they certainly don't want their readers to read for themselves rather than only seeing her lame summary of my comments.
I'd love to rub this clean versus unclean animal genetic diversity prediction in their faces. Obviously, I'm no expert on analyzing the comparative statistics, but if there was a total genetic bottleneck just a few thousand years ago, I would think that a founding population of two individuals for unclean animals and a founding population of six or thirteen for clean animals would be easily detectable in today's genetic diversity statistics. Wouldn't it just be a matter of quantifying the alleles?
As an example, there should be much more genetic diversity in doves versus owls and in grasshoppers versus dung beetles---if there was a global flood 4359 years ago (according to AiG.)
[The previous post in question is at ongoing discussions under Stephen Marley's review of 'The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution' at Amazon.com.]