How big would an ark really have to be to house two of every species?
828923
Hello sweet Kayla.. :)\n\nCould Noah's Ark really hold all the animals that were supposed to be preserved from Flood?\n \nA growing number of scientists believe that geological evidence indicates our world has undergone a catastrophic flood. This is causing them to question whether or not the biblical account of Noah's ark could be true. Many people are rereading the Biblical description of the Ark to ascertain the feasibility of such a vessel to fulfill its designated purpose in light of present day knowledge of both zoology and our present day knowledge of shipbuilding.\n \nSize comparison between average size one-story home and Noah's Ark. Illustration from The World that Perished.How big was Noah's Ark?\n\n"And God said unto Noah… Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt though make in the ark, and thou shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of… the length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. A window shalt thou make in the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side therof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it." (Gen. 6:14-16)\n \nA cubit is the distance between an adult's elbow and tip of the finger, no less than 18-inches [45.72 centimeters]. (Scene from The World that Perished.)Most Hebrew scholars believe the cubit to have been no less than 18 inches long [45.72 centimeters]. This means that the ark would have been at least 450 feet long [137.16 meters], 75 feet wide [22.86 meters] and 45 feet high [13.716000000000001 meters]. Noah's Ark was said to have been the largest sea-going vessel ever built until the late nineteenth century when giant metal ships were first constructed. Its length to width ratio of six to one provided excellent stability on the high seas. In fact, modern shipbuilders say it would have been almost impossible to turn over. In every way, it was admirably suited for riding out the tremendous storms in the year of the flood.\n\nThese dimensions are especially interesting when compared to those given in the mythical, Babylonian account of the Ark. Here the ark is described as a perfect cube, extending 120 cubits in all directions and with nine decks. Such a vessel would spin slowly round and round in the water and from the standpoint of stability, would be a disaster.\n\nWas the ark big enough to hold the number of animals required?\nThe total available floor space on the ark would have been over 100,000 square feet, which would be more floor space than in 20 standard-sized basketball courts.\n \nAssuming an 18-inch cubit [45.72 centimeters], Noah's Ark would have had a cubic volume equal to 569 modern railroad stock cars.The total cubic volume would have been 1,518,000 cubic feet [462,686.4 cubic meters] --that would be equal to the capacity of 569 modern railroad stock cars.\n\nNow comes the question, how many land dwelling air breathing animals would have had to be taken aboard the ark to survive the flood?\n\nAccording to Ernest Mayr, America's leading taxonomist, there are over 1 million species of animals in the world.\n \nGod only provided the Ark for the protection of humans and land-dwelling, air-breathing creatures. A huge number of animals would not need to be taken aboard the Ark because they are water dwellers. Representatives would be expected to survive the catastrophe. With God's protection against extinction during the Deluge, survival would have been assured. (Scene from The World that Perished, a Christian motion picture about the Flood)However, the vast majority of these are capable of surviving in water and would not need to be brought aboard the ark. Noah need make no provision for the 21,000 species of fish or the 1,700 tunicates (marine chordates like sea squirts) found throughout the seas of the world, or the 600 echinode
799527
You stumped us on this one.  I wouldn't even hazard a guess, although it would have interesting implications if certain vertebrates didn't have all the vertebrate.
844695
There must be more information, otherwise the only thing we can say is that it must be an even number and the number in ghkzoo must be a multiple of 5 so that we get a whole number result.  If we know what the maximum number of potential zoo species is  we can work out 2/5 of it -- or rather, 2/5 of the nearest multiple of 5 which is equal to or less than it -- and this would give the upper limit of the possible value, but I'm sure it would be huge.
1114115
I can assure you that this is absolutely not biologically possible.  Members of different species cannot reproduce and produce viable offpsring together, according to the classical definition of a species.
206012
When I took English class inmiddle school, I learned that the difference is not only there size but also what there species or characteristics were like. They don't all act the same and have different goals and ways of living. hope this helps. =>
1001736
Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant or http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant\n\nI don't know whether are you asking about the ratio of physical size, or the ratio of number of them
210985
COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC SAY NONE .DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MANY ANIMAL SPECIES THERE ARE? WE DONT HAVE SHIPS TODAY BIG ENOUGH TO ACCOMODATE 2 OF EVERY ANIMAL ON EARTH...SCIENCE PEOPLE ...REALITY, USE THE BRAIN
524050
It would take a while to look up, but the mineral content does not vary significantly between any mammals, so human mineral content would be sufficient.  In fact, I doubt if the mineral content varies more than a tiny amount between mammals and birds.
158262
As big as its environment, much like an anaconda.
904802
The carrying capacity is generally very hard to determine. With bobcats it may be near impossible as they do not cram in as many individuals as the land will hold, as a moose or deer will, so carrying capacity is different for them. The carrying capacity will also vary depending on the different habitat, it is generally determined for a type of ecosystem or a particular area. Bobcats set up territories, so the territory range within an acceptable habitat will determine how many bobcats there are. I doubt their population numbers ever even come close to the actual carrying capacity for them. With that said, from what i could find, it looks like there are around 7 bobcats/100km2. Ive attached a link to a good paper discussing bobcat distribution. hope this helps a bit
921854
It's all speculation, but in general, larger animals have deeper voices. Male humans are about 20% bigger than females, on average.
282066
"Largest" is usually based on the overall mass of the animal, not just the length. While anacondas can get considerably longer than crocodiles, they aren't nearly as massive.
805180
Jonmc had it right, but I will try and restate it a little less beligerantly.  To put it in a single sentance, individuals don't evolve, segments of populations do.\n\nLet's say a short necked animal has two offspring.  One offspring has a long neck due to a random mutation in it's genes.  Now it can eat from the tops of trees, while the others still can only eat grass and bushes.  These two are NOT competing for the same resource.  When they have offspring of their own, these offspring will likewise not be competing with each other.  If the environment doesn't change, then in a few years you'll have one species of long necked animals walking around, and a species of short necks.  The long necks "came from" the short necks, but there is no reason the short necks should have died out or ceased to exist because of this.  \n\nOf course in real life, it's always much more complex than this.  Humans actually DID compete with the species that we came from, the earlier genuses of homo, and did replace them.  I hope this helps.
398853
They can expand to whatever size is needed.\nThey can even have babies come out through them!
766523
No Larry,\nGod told old Noah to put 2 of everything on the ark. Problem was those darned pesky Pegasusi were frisky feeling because it was windy and no matter how hard Noah and his sons tried they just couldn't catch those wiley critters. ;)\n\nLL
674612
The arctic is not a well-defined region since the frozen areas north of North America, Europe, and Asia can grown and shrink with the seasons and climate.  For the purposes of this answer, let's limit ourself to the area of the Arctic Ocean, which covers 14,090,000 square kilometers.  \n\nNow, you can fit about 4 ladybirds (also known as ladybugs or the ladybird beetle) per square centimeter.  The math is pretty easy from there.  In one square meter you could fit 4 X 100 X 100, or 40,000 ladybirds.  In a square kilometer, 40,000 times 1,000 times 1,000, or 40 billion (40,000,000,000).  Then multiply that times 14,090,000 and you get 5.63600 × 10 ^17, or 563,600,000,000,000,000 ladybirds.\n\nThat's a LOT of bugs!
531768
Each adult brown bear (or grizzly) can require up to several hundred square miles of range to feed itself.    There just isn't that much open space left in the lower 48.  We keep crowding the open spaces with development, building roads into the wilderness and logging thus reducing the huge areas these magnificent creatures require.