Noah’s Ark: a Fresh Feasibility Study

The Feasibility of Noah’s Ark: A Designogenetic Perspective on Population Viability and Dietary Needs

Introduction

The Genesis account of Noah’s Ark describes a vessel built to preserve terrestrial life through a catastrophic flood. Some question the feasibility of such an undertaking, particularly the Ark’s capacity to house and sustain such a diverse population. However, viewing the Ark’s population through a Designogenetic lens offers a solution that aligns with both the biblical text and biological principles. This approach emphasizes representative “kinds” rather than all modern species, making the Ark’s dimensions and population viable within the framework of post-Flood diversification.

Understanding "Kinds" in the Designogenetic Tree

Genesis uses the term "kind" (Hebrew min), which in the Designogenetic framework refers to broad biological categories. Rather than narrowly defined species, these kinds represent foundational groups with genetic flexibility, allowing natural diversification over time. For example, a "Canine Kind" would encompass wolves, foxes, and dogs, with post-Flood adaptation accounting for their diversity. This approach reduces the Ark’s population to 1,500 to 2,000 representative pairs, each representing a core "kind" with the genetic diversity necessary for subsequent adaptation.

Exclusion of Dinosaurs and Warm-Blooded Reptiles

From a Designogenetic perspective, dinosaurs and other warm-blooded reptiles were not included among the Ark’s inhabitants. Genesis specifies that only land-dwelling, air-breathing creatures were required on the Ark, particularly those essential for repopulating the post-Flood Earth (Genesis 7:22). By this account:

• Land-based dinosaurs, which evidence suggests were largely warm-blooded, did not require representation on the Ark, as their ecological roles would not align with the Ark’s purpose to repopulate a renewed Earth.
• Cold-blooded reptiles (such as snakes, lizards, and tortoises) were included, as they play a role in terrestrial ecosystems suitable for the Earth’s environmental reset after the Flood.

The Designogenetic Tree of Ark Populations

Using the Designogenetic Tree, we can organize the Ark’s population into distinct kinds, each capable of diversifying after disembarkation. Excluding dinosaurs and water-based reptiles, this tree focuses solely on terrestrial, air-breathing animals as described in Genesis. Below is the structured tree for land-based kinds on the Ark:

Life
├── Prokaryotic Kinds
├── Eukaryotic Kinds
├── Plant Kinds
├── Animal Kinds
│   ├── Invertebrate Kind
│   │   ├── Insect Kind
│   │   ├── Arachnid Kind (e.g., spiders, scorpions)
│   │   ├── Myriapod Kind (e.g., centipedes, millipedes)
│   │   └── Land Mollusk Kind (e.g., snails, slugs)
│   └── Vertebrate Kind
│       ├── Mammals
│       │   ├── Marine Mammals
│       │   └── Land Mammals
│       │       ├── Primates
│       │       ├── Carnivores
│       │       │   ├── Canine Kind (e.g., wolves, foxes, dogs)
│       │       │   ├── Feline Kind (e.g., big cats, small cats)
│       │       │   ├── Bear Kind
│       │       │   └── Mustelid Kind (e.g., weasels, otters)
│       │       ├── Herbivores
│       │       │   ├── Rodent Kind (e.g., mice, squirrels)
│       │       │   ├── Lagomorph Kind (e.g., rabbits, hares)
│       │       │   └── Elephant Kind
│       │       ├── Ungulates (Hoofed Mammals)
│       │       │   ├── Artiodactyl Kind (e.g., cattle, deer, pigs)
│       │       │   └── Perissodactyl Kind (e.g., horses, rhinos)
│       │       ├── Marsupials Kind (e.g., kangaroos, opossums)
│       │       ├── Edentates Kind (e.g., anteaters, sloths)
│       │       └── Chiropteran Kind (bats, if included as land-based)
│       ├── Birds
│       │   ├── Raptor Kind (e.g., hawks, eagles)
│       │   ├── Songbird Kind
│       │   ├── Waterfowl Kind (e.g., ducks, swans)
│       │   ├── Gamebird Kind (e.g., pheasants, quail)
│       │   ├── Parrot Kind
│       │   └── Ostrich and Flightless Bird Kind
│       ├── Reptiles (Cold-Blooded)
│       │   ├── Lizard Kind (e.g., iguanas, chameleons)
│       │   ├── Snake Kind
│       │   └── Tortoise Kind (terrestrial tortoises only)
│       └── Amphibians
│           ├── Frog and Toad Kind
│           └── Salamander Kind
└── Virus Kinds
    

Clean Animals: Supporting Agricultural and Dietary Needs

The Genesis account specifies that Noah brought seven pairs of each clean animal (Genesis 7:2-3), which would include sacrificial and possibly agricultural animals. This larger population of clean animals—cattle, sheep, and goats, for example—provided for immediate needs and also served as a practical food source for the Ark's carnivores after the reemergence of their suppressed carnivory on the Ark.

• Clean Animals as a Food Source: Clean animals would provide a sustainable food source for the Ark’s carnivorous inhabitants, like felines and canines. This ensured that these animals could maintain their population without exhausting the kinds.
• Repopulation and Diversification of Clean Animals: Larger populations of clean animals would repopulate quickly after the Flood, serving sacrificial, agricultural, and ecological roles as post-Flood ecosystems rebalanced.

Population and Space Calculations

The Designogenetic Tree’s focus on kinds reduces the Ark’s population to approximately 1,500 to 2,000 pairs, fitting within the Ark’s 42,300 cubic meters.

• Space by Kind Size: Small animals (e.g., rodents, songbirds): 0.5–1 cubic meter per pair; Medium animals (e.g., canines, ungulates): around 3 cubic meters per pair; Large animals (e.g., bears, large ungulates): about 10 cubic meters per pair; Very large animals (e.g., elephants): 50 cubic meters per pair.
• Infrastructure Space: Adding 20-30% for movement, food, water, and waste storage brings the requirement to roughly 52,000–55,000 cubic meters, fitting within the Ark’s described capacity when optimized for space.

Establishing a Viable Population Post-Flood

Using population growth rates, the Ark’s inhabitants could establish viable populations within 50-100 years, accounting for genetic stability and environmental adaptation. This aligns with biblical timelines, as Genesis describes established human and animal populations within a few centuries after the Flood.

Conclusion

The Designogenetic framework provides a viable structure for Noah’s Ark. Focusing on representative kinds with additional clean animals for dietary and agricultural needs, and excluding dinosaurs and warm-blooded reptiles, the Ark’s population becomes manageable, and its space requirements realistic. This approach aligns with both the biblical narrative and biological principles, showing that a foundational population of each kind could adapt and diversify, resulting in the biodiversity observed today.

In summary, the Designogenetic model supports Noah’s Ark as a feasible story of survival and a foundation for a world renewed, genetically rich, and ecologically balanced, capable of thriving in a transformed Earth.

Objections and Responses to the Feasibility of Noah’s Ark

Objection 1: The Ark’s Capacity Could Not Support All Species

Response: The Designogenetic approach doesn’t require all modern species on the Ark. Instead, it suggests representative “kinds” (roughly equivalent to family-level groups) with built-in genetic potential for post-Flood diversification. This reduces the required population to about 1,500–2,000 pairs, fitting comfortably within the Ark’s estimated 42,300 cubic meters when space for infrastructure and clean animal groups is included.

Objection 2: Clean Animals Wouldn’t Be Sufficient to Feed Carnivores

Response: Clean animals (e.g., sheep, goats, cattle) were brought in seven pairs, providing a larger base for sacrificial use, post-Flood agriculture, and as a potential food source for strict carnivores. Additionally, many carnivores can survive temporarily on plant-based foods or preserved meat in a survival scenario, minimizing the impact on live populations. This setup provided a sustainable food supply during the Ark voyage and allowed carnivores to return to natural prey populations post-Flood as ecosystems rebounded.

Objection 3: Dinosaurs Should Have Been Included on the Ark

Response: Evidence suggests many dinosaurs were warm-blooded, and the Genesis account specifies only land-dwelling, air-breathing creatures needed for post-Flood repopulation were required. The Ark’s purpose was to preserve biodiversity necessary for Earth’s ecosystems, and since dinosaurs do not appear to fit this purpose within the narrative, they were likely not included. Instead, cold-blooded reptiles like snakes and lizards were brought aboard as they have a stable ecological role.

Objection 4: Rapid Post-Flood Diversification Is Unrealistic

Response: The Designogenetic approach allows for microevolutionary adaptation within kinds, which is well-supported in biology. Small, isolated populations can rapidly diversify, especially under environmental pressures. Post-Flood conditions with abundant resources and open niches would have facilitated swift adaptation, allowing these “kinds” to diversify into the variety of species we observe today without requiring macroevolutionary changes.

Objection 5: How Could the Ark Maintain a Stable Environment for All Kinds?

Response: While maintaining the Ark would be challenging, the number of animals and species diversity is reduced by the "kinds" approach, simplifying care. Furthermore, ancient preservation methods (e.g., dried meat, stored grains) could support dietary needs, and many animals might have entered states of reduced activity or hibernation, lowering care demands. Additionally, systems for ventilation, waste management, and water storage could have been feasible within the Ark's design.

Objection 6: The Ark Story Lacks Scientific Credibility

Response: While the Ark narrative is primarily theological, exploring it through the Designogenetic model offers a reasonable framework consistent with genetic diversity and observed biological adaptation. By focusing on kinds and accepting post-Flood diversification within genetic boundaries, this model aligns with both scientific and biblical principles, presenting the Ark as a plausible vessel for repopulating the Earth’s ecosystems.