Noah's Ark and Australia

[Bravus]

Today's featured article on Wikipedia is about Noah's Ark - worth a read, I think.

It got me thinking about something: how do recent creationists account for biological diversity? If all the living things on the whole earth were wiped out, then repopulated from a single point in Turkey, how do we account for the unique animals of the Australian island, which don't appear anywhere else in the world?

[David Koot]

Ahh, that very question was raised to me, by a biologist in a discussion on a public forum. What, indeed, is the answer? I'm wondering if Ted (Iron Deacon) or Dwight Hornbacher, who are both professional scientists and recent creationists, would have an answer?

[Gregory Matthews]

Any such would be speculative.

The majority of creationists accept the creation of new species. They do not believe that all species were on the Ark with Noah. So, they would allow for local areas in which unique species of life existed that lived no-where else.

I am certain that other issues remain, that I can think of. But I thought that I would comment as I have above.

[David Koot]

The problem, Gregory, as it has been presented to me, goes beyond the issue of species unique to Australia. Examples have been cited of the dispersion of certain bird species. The term, I believe, is 'biogeographical dispersion.' According to the evolutionary scientists with whom I disucssed the issues, THAT is one which no Creationist has been able to answer. As for speciation . . . Hmmmmmm. I don't know that I would agree with your characterization of 'the majority of creationists.' On the GENUS level, yes, but speciation?

[Dr. Shane]

Many believe that platectonics started off rapidly and slowed down. Certian groups of animals were isoladed as the contenants quickly drifted apart from each other. Of course it is all speculation.

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

Shane said:

Many believe that platectonics started off rapidly and slowed down. Certian groups of animals were isoladed as the contenants quickly drifted apart from each other. Of course it is all speculation.

---

Is it? What about Gen. 10:25:

"To Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided . . ."

Here is NIDOTTE's comment on the etymology of the word:

"ANE Akk. palaku, divide (an area) (AHw, 813); Aram. (and Syr.) plg, divide (DISO, 227). Nom. forms with the meaning ditch, canal, and river appear in several Sem. languages (Kaufman, 79), and they occur in place names in Mesopotamia (Thompson, 306)."

As the various people groups began moving away from Babylon, God made sure that they would stay separated! He "divided" the Earth with water, (etymology of the word) by separating the continents. the same God Who caused the dry land to appear, was able to separate that dry land by water.

David Koot

[Gail]

<img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/129933-offtopic2.gif" alt="" />

Wow- thanks for mentioning this... on the same page as this article is a link stating that Charles Taylor, exiled dictator of Liberia, where my son is right now, has disappeared after Nigeria declared Liberia free to pick him up and try him on war crimes. I hadn't heard this news yet

Kev's supposed to be coming home in a month... I'd like him safe and sound...

Okay!!! <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/focus.gif" alt="" />

[Gregory Matthews]

Any creationist who accepts (if I understood you) the creation of a new Genus, would have to accept the creation of new species. In the taxonomic tree, species is a sub-level below Genus. So, automaticly, a new Genus produces new species.

[David Koot]

I understand that some Creationist scientists support the diversification of genii on the grounds of still being within "its kind" (Gen. 2) I can dig up an article on that from a Creation science mag. However, speciation within a genus seems to be an issue.

[David Koot]

BTW Gregory, you used the word 'creation,' in regard to new genii/species. However, we are talking about biological evolution, not origins.

[bevin]

Fast drifting continents, fast drifting gene pools, and animals being guided by miraculous impulses are the usual shallow explanations 'floated'.

However none of them account for two facts

(a) The required rates are far higher than evolutionists postulate, and if those rates are true then it makes evolution even more likely

( They can't explain why the rapid slow-down in gene-pool drift

© They can't explain the fossil record

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

That is kind of a shallow explanation too.

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

[Morning Glory]

Gregory,

I am a creationist. My definition is that I BELIEVE the Genesis story. I can't explain it scientifically, but I believe the outline given in scripture. However, I have NEVER heard what you have posted here. Where did you get this information? This does not resemble anything that I was ever taught or have read anywhere.

Disclaimer: I am not a scientist, so perhaps that is why I have never heard this. Sounds outlandish to me, but, that is my personal opinion.

MG

[Bravus]

I think it's worthwhile to note that this biogeographical stuff is more of an argument against a very short age of the earth than against creationism itself: it could easily fit with divine creation that happened much longer ago. I don't have a position here, I was just interested in the explanations offered, and will continue to be.

(it could also be a result of God having created a hugely diverse range of species but then some dying out by natural selection in particular environments - i.e. it doesn't actually *require* that evolutionary mechanisms create new species.)

[Dr. Shane]

There is no reason to believe that the contenants have always moved at the same rate they are currently moving. It is possible that an act of God broke the contenants up after the Tower of Babel so as to force men to populate the Earth and not gather all in one area.

It is like the speed of light. Light may have traveled faster in the past than it now does. We know so little about the history of creation. All we have is our world today to observe and speculate.

I too do not take the position that the Earth is only 6,000 years old - although it may be. I certianly don't buy into the millions-of-years theory but there may have been more generations between Adam and Noah and/or Noah and Abraham than is recorded in Scripture.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

There is no reason to believe that the contenants have always moved at the same rate they are currently moving. It is possible that an act of God broke the contenants up after the Tower of Babel so as to force men to populate the Earth and not gather all in one area.

---

Shane, you are smart. Now you need to read more so you get the data needed to reason with.

The data you are missing is this. There are several major indicators of age in the earth

- fossils

- radioactive materials

- erosion and build up

- meteor strikes

- and others

When we look at the rocks and make various measurements and make the moving jigsaw puzzle we certainly see that the continents have not moved at the same speed or in the same direction.

http://kids.earth.nasa.gov/archive/pangaea/

While they are moving they are also changing - seas come, drop sand stone, volcanoes happen, mountain ranges build up and erode, huge areas get pushed underground and metamorphose, animals evolve/die/fossilise

These give some estimate of rate. The idea that everything swiftly moved into its current position is contrary to the facts on/in the ground.

The topic is fascinating, and if you would simply read a lot more to get the facts, I am sure you would reach the same conclusion that I have.

/Bevin

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "Light may have traveled faster in the past than it now does."

That is part of a theory held by some (a very few)evolutionary astrophysists, and one (?) creationist SDA. [i do not have an exact number.]

However, it is soundly rejected by the majority of scientists, both creationist SDAs, and evolutionary scientists.

[Dr. Shane]

The 7-day creation and the Biblical flood is soundly rejected by the majority of scientists and is doubted by some creationsists.

We don't know what happened because we were not here to see it. Looking at the mini-grand canyon that was dug out after the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, most scientists would conclude it took millions of years to erode if it wasn't for the fact that we observed it happen.

Lava was dated from a volcano that erupted in Hawaii. The lava taken from the beach dated thousands of years different from that that ran down into the sea and yet we know it was the same lava with the same age.

The old adage "Don't believe everything you hear and only half of what you see" applies to science as well. Man is not really as smart as he thinks himself to be. However there is one thing we can have complete confidence in. That is the Word of God.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

There is no reason to believe that the contenants have always moved at the same rate they are currently moving.

---

Let me clarify. I am simply saying we don't have enough evidence to conclude that the contenants have always moved at the same rate that they are now moving. I am not making any conclusion. We don't know how things happened. We can only speculate.

God could have broken Australia off and pushed it away at speed X. Broken the Americas off and pushed them at speed Y. Broken Antartica off and pushed it at speed Z. Newton's laws of motion would have applied as much than as they do now. The continents speed would have been determined by applied force upon it. Not all contenants had the same applied force. The external force on the contenants would provide resistance and slow them down. As the contenants were pushed apart they created an opposite and equal reaction which is observable. What we don't know is what set the contenants in motion and how fast they were orginally moving.

[David Koot]

Here is the link to the article about taxonomic classifications in comparison with 'same kind' (Gen. 2):

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i3/ligers_wolphins.asp

[David Koot]

I am also posting an excerpt from the online discussion in which this link first appeared:

"dko190: To tens of millions of people, perhaps more, the term 'evolution' encompasses origin of life as well as changes in the gene pool by natural selection, mutation and genetic drift.

Rubble: And those same "tens of millions of people, perhaps more," are simply wrong.

dko190: Has 'science' given up on the idea of a human being evolving from slime?

Rubble: It's quite possible that 'science' has gvien up trying to convince people, such as yourself, that evolutionary theory has never claimed as much.

dko190: Also, please list the websites where verification may be found, of any observed occurrence of living organisms evolving from one kingdom to another or from one phylum to another or from one class to another or from one order to another or from one family to another or from one genus to another. I shall await with interest your response. I shall also critically review any such alleged verification.

Rubble: We should KIM that taxonomic categories above the species (genus, family, order, and so forth) are completely arbitrary. They do not represent absolute categories of organisms, in the same manner that species generally represent. These categories exist largely for our own convenience, and result entirely from our needs as biologists. Nature simply doesn't recognize these categories, as it does for species. Thus, your request here amounts to asking nature to comply with admittedly human constructions of categorization. Essentially, it's a nonsense demand.

Perhaps more to the point, Creationists typically recognize macroevolution at levels above species, with the caveat that such macroevolution occurs with the alleged "created kind." For example:

[batten]: In 1985, Hawaii’s Sea Life Park reported the birth of a baby from the mating of a male false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) and a female bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) ... The birth surprised the park staff, as the parents are rather different in appearance. Here we have a hybrid between different genera in the same family, Delphinidae (dolphins and killer whales). Since the offspring in this case are fertile (Kekaimalu has since given birth to a baby wholphin), these two genera are really, by definition, a single polytypic biological species. Other genera in the group are much more alike than the two that produced the offspring in Hawaii, which suggests that the 12 living genera might have all descended from the original created kind. (Don Batten, "Ligers and Wholphins? What Next?" Answers in Genesis)

The clear implication: twelve genera within Family Delphinidae arose from a single genus."

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "The majority of creationists accept the creation of new species. They do not believe that all species were on the Ark with Noah. So, they would allow for local areas in which unique species of life existed that lived no-where else."

MG, I assume that the above is the focus of your comment, and that you wonder at my statement that there are unique species of life being created, and that not all species of life were on the Ark.

Let us look at taxonomy for a minute.. Taxonomy is the science by which attempts are made to group things into simular groups. It is a dynamic science that changes over time. Current thought says that there are more "Kingdoms" than what I learned when I was taking Biology in college.

In addition, there are sometimes differences between scientists as to how something should be classified.

To illustrate taxonomicly, There was once Animal and Plant Kingdoms. [Now we know of other Kingdoms.] Going down below that we had "Class" and "Phylia." Finally at the end we had Genus and species. [Yes, I know we can get into sub-species.] Every living thing has as scientific name which is a combination of the Genus and species. The scientific name for a human is: Homo sapian.

This whole taxonomic structure is of human origin, and it is not related to God and the Bible.

The reality is that in this taxonomic structure new specied spring into existance. Why do we know this? Because, we humans who have set up the taxonomic tree, have defined what a species is, and we have defined it in a manner that new species come into existance. It is so becaue we say that it is so. This is the same saying that one pound contains 16 ounces becaue we have said it is so.

What does the Genesis record say. Well, first of all, it does not mention anything at all about our wonderful taxonomic tree, because such did not exist at the time the Bible was written.

Gen. 1:24 (and others) tell us that God created animals according to their "kind." Genesis 7:2ff tells us that animals went into the Ark according to "kind."

What does the Bible mean by "kind?" It certainly deos not mean "species." as our taxonomic tree had not been created yet. I do not know exactly what the Biblical word "kind" means. I have a basic concept about it. But, I do not know. My concept suggests some sort of division beyond which animals cannot reproduce and produce living offspring. e.g. You cannot breed a fly to a pig, and produce a living offspring. (Yes, I know what can be done in the genetics lab as to the insertation genetic material.)

The majority of creationists, as I know them, coming from this perspectie, know that new species are being created, and that the Ark did not have every species of life on it.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

Looking at the mini-grand canyon that was dug out after the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, most scientists would conclude it took millions of years to erode if it wasn't for the fact that we observed it happen.

---

This statement is simply false.

We can tell the difference between something eroded rapidly a few years ago, and something eroded slowly over huge periods of time.

/Bevin

[David Koot]

Regarding the issue of biogeographical dispersion, which has been used to dispute the occurrence of a GRGF ("geologically recent global flood"), here are some data which have been presented by a biologist. I would be interested in knowing how Creationist scientists would respond:

"Hummingbirds are part of Family Trochilidae. The interesting thing about hummingbirds, and the rest of Family Trochilidae, is that they aren't found in Europe, Africa, Asia, or Australia -- at least, not in the wild. They're only found in North, Central, and South America, with most species found only in the tropics.

So somehow after this alleged flood, ALL of the hummingbirds and their fellow trochilids just happened to end up in North, Central, and South America -- but nowhere else. That seems very odd to me. After all, there are tropical forests found in Africa and Asia; some parts of Europe must be suitable for hummingbirds in the wild, and so forth. Yet only in the Americas do we find hummingbirds.

Basically in this "Noah's Ark" scenario, you have two choices, which you can mix'n'match as you see fit:

• they migrated from the Middle East ("the mountains of Ararat") to the Americas; or

• they diversified from species already present in the Americas (heavens! not evolution!! not in AMERICA!!!)

There's quite a diversity within this family. The vast majority of the genera were described before 1859, when Darwin published his landmark book on evolution, On the Origin of Species -- so you really can't accuse evolutionists of "inventing" this diversity. Let's break it down for our viewers ...

• Family Trochilidae (over three hundred described species)

o Subfamily Phaethornithinae (six genera, thirty-six species)

 Genus Anopetia (one species)

 Genus Eutoxeres (two species)

 Genus Glaucis (three species)

 Genus Phaethornis (twenty-five species)

 Genus Ramphodon (one species)

 Genus Threnetes (three species)

o Subfamily Trochilinae (ninety-eight genera, two hundred ninety-seven species)

 Genus Abeillia (one species)

 Genus Adelomyia (one species)

 Genus Aglaeactis (four species)

 Genus Aglaiocercus (two species)

 Genus Amazilia (thirty-three species)

 Genus Androdon (one species)

 Genus Anthocephala (one species)

 Genus Anthracothorax (eight species)

 Genus Aphantochroa (one species)

 Genus Archilochus (two species)

 Genus Atthis (two species)

 Genus Augastes (two species)

 Genus Basilinna (two species)

 Genus Boissonneaua (three species)

 Genus Calliphlox (four species)

 Genus Calothorax (two species)

 Genus Calypte (two species)

 Genus Campylopterus (eleven species)

 Genus Chaetocercus (six species)

 Genus Chalcostigma (five species)

 Genus Chalybura (two species)

 Genus Chlorostilbon (twenty species)

 Genus Chrysolampis (one species)

 Genus Chrysuronia (one species)

 Genus Clytolaema (one species)

 Genus Coeligena (ten species)

 Genus Colibri (four species)

 Genus Cyanophaia (one species)

 Genus Cynanthus (two species)

 Genus Damophila (one species)

 Genus Discosura (five species)

 Genus Doricha (two species)

 Genus Doryfera (two species)

 Genus Elvira (two species)

 Genus Ensifera (one species)

 Genus Eriocnemis (ten species)

 Genus Eugenes (one species)

 Genus Eulampis (two species)

 Genus Eulidia (one species)

 Genus Eupetomena (one species)

 Genus Eupherusa (four species)

 Genus Florisuga (two species)

 Genus Goethalsia (one species)

 Genus Goldmania (one species)

 Genus Haplophaedia (three species)

 Genus Heliactin (one species)

 Genus Heliangelus (eight species)

 Genus Heliodoxa (nine species)

 Genus Heliomaster (four species)

 Genus Heliothryx (two species)

 Genus Hylocharis (six species)

 Genus Hylonympha (one species)

 Genus Klais (one species)

 Genus Lafresnaya (one species)

 Genus Lampornis (seven species)

 Genus Lamprolaima (one species)

 Genus Lepidopyga (three species)

 Genus Lesbia (two species)

 Genus Leucippus (four species)

 Genus Leucochloris (one species)

 Genus Loddigesia (one species)

 Genus Lophornis (ten species)

 Genus Mellisuga (two species)

 Genus Metallura (nine species)

 Genus Microchera (one species)

 Genus Microstilbon (one species)

 Genus Myrmia (one species)

 Genus Myrtis (one species)

 Genus Ocreatus (one species)

 Genus Opisthoprora (one species)

 Genus Oreonympha (one species)

 Genus Oreotrochilus (five species)

 Genus Orthorhyncus (one species)

 Genus Oxypogon (one species)

 Genus Panterpe (one species)

 Genus Patagona (one species)

 Genus Phlogophilus (two species)

 Genus Polyonymus (one species)

 Genus Polytmus (three species)

 Genus Pterophanes (one species)

 Genus Ramphomicron (two species)

 Genus Rhodopis (one species)

 Genus Sappho (one species)

 Genus Schistes (one species)

 Genus Selasphorus (six species)

 Genus Sephanoides (two species)

 Genus Stellula (one species)

 Genus Stephanoxis (one species)

 Genus Sternoclyta (one species)

 Genus Taphrolesbia (one species)

 Genus Taphrospilus (one species)

 Genus Thalurania (six species)

 Genus Thaumastura (one species)

 Genus Tilmatura (one species)

 Genus Topaza (two species)

 Genus Trochilus (two species)

 Genus Urochroa (one species)

 Genus Urosticte (one species)

Order Xenarthra consists of four families: two-toed sloths, three-toed sloths, "anteaters" and armadillos. They're all classified as xenarthrans because they all share some peculiar anatomical features, including "xenarthrous processes" (bony projections from the vertebrae -- bones making the spine). IOW these mammals, which outwardly seem very different from one another, share the same sorts of anatomical peculiarities.

It turns out that none of these mammals -- roughly thirty species -- are found in Africa, Europe, Asia, or Australia. Rather, their global distribution is almost entirely restricted to Central and South America; one species, Dasypus novemcinctus (nine-banded armadillo), lives in most of the southern United States as well, as did several extinct species of sloths and armadillos. IOW these very different looking mammals, in addition to sharing some peculiar anatomy, also share similar geographical space.

If these mammals (xenarthrans) are more closely to one another, than they are related to any other species of organism, then it follows that they share a common ancestral species that lived more recently than did an ancestral species that gave rise to xenarthrans AND other organisms. In general, any given species will have a restricted distribution, or range, around the globe; IOW a species is usually found in only one part of the world, and nowhere else -- humans of course form an exception to this generality. Thus it follows that the ancestral xenarthran species very likely had a limited geographical range; any species that arose from that ancestral species would also range in a geographically close region, adjacent to or overlapping the range of the ancestral xenarthran species.

We find this sort of pattern over and over again.

I've compiled a partial list of geographical limited taxa, where closely related species are also closely located about the globe. Enjoy ...

Biological taxa restricted to Africa

• Family Lemuridae, 10 species, Madagascar and the Comoro Islands. There may be a single fossil specimen within this family found in Pakistan.

• Family Cheirogaleidae, 7 species, Madagascar (dwarf lemurs, mouse lemurs)

• Family Indriidae (Indridae), 5 species, Madagascar (lemurlike primates)

• Family Megaladapidae, 7 species, Madagascar (sportive/weasel lemurs, Megaladapis)

• Order Macroscelidea -->Family Macroscelididae, 19 species, northernmost Africa and south of the Sahara (elephant shrews)

• Family Tenrecidae, 24 species. Madagascar, western central Africa

• Family Chrysochoridae, 18 species, southern Africa (golden moles)

• Order Hyracoidae -->Family Procaviidae, 7 species, sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East

• Family Galagonidae, 11 species (galagos, bushbabies)

• Genus Arctocebus, 2 species (pottos)

• Family Ctenodactylidae, 5 species -- northern Africa (gundis)

• Family Anomaluridae, 7 species -- central Africa (scaly-tailed squirrels)

• Family Thryonomyidae, 2 species -- Africa, south of the Sahara

• Family Bathyergidae, 12 species -- Africa, south of the Sahara

• Subfamily Nesomyinae, 14 species -- Madagascar (Malagasy rats)

• Subfamily Otomyinae, 11 species -- central and southern Africa (vlei rats and whistling rats)

Biological taxa restricted to the Americas

• Families Cebidae and Callitrichidae, 58 and 26 species respectively, Central and South America ("New World monkeys")

• Order Xenarthra, 29 species, Central and South America, southern North America (armadillos, anteaters, sloths)

• Family Solenodontidae, 2 species. Haiti and Cuba.

• Order Paucituberculata, 5 species. Western South America.

• Order Didelphimorphia, 60 species ("New World opossums"). Has a fossil record in Europe.

• Family Abrocomidae, 3 species -- Andes, southern Peru to northern Chile

• Family Chinchillidae, 6 species -- Andes, central and southern

• Family Ctenomyidae, 38(?) species -- central and southern South America

• Family Octodontidae, 9 species -- Peru, Bolivia, Chile, and Argentina

• Family Agoutidae, 2 species -- Central and South America

• Family Capromyidae, about 20 species -- West Indies

• Family Caviidae, 14 species -- South America

• Family Dasyproctidae, 13 species -- tropical New World

• Family Echimyidae, 78 species -- tropical Central and South America

• Family Erethizontidae, 12 species -- North America to northern Argentina

• Family Heptaxodontidae, 5 species -- Greater Antilles, plus Anguilla and St. Martins

• Family Geomyidae, ~35 species -- North and Central America (pocket gophers)

• Family Heteromyidae, ~60 species -- western North America, Central America, northwestern South America (kangaroo rats, pocket mice, and relatives)

Biological taxa restricted to Australia, New Guinea, neighboring islands

• Order Monotremata, 3 species, Australia (platypus, echidna). One fossil found in Argentina.

• Order Dasyuromorphia, 63 species, Australia and New Guinea (primarily carnivorous marsupials)

• Order Peramelemorphia, 21 species, Australia and New Guinea (bandicoots and bilbies)

• Order Diprotodontia, 117 species, Australia and New Guinea (possums, gliders, koalas, kangaroos, et cetera)

Biological taxa restricted to SE Asia

• Family Hylobatidae, 11 species, Sumatra, Borneo, Java, and the mainland (gibbons and siamangs)

• Order Scandentia -->Family Tupaiidae, 19 species, central and SE Asia (tree shrews)

• Order Dermoptera -->Family Cynocephalidae, 2 species, SE Asia including the southern Phillipines (colugos or "flying lemurs")

• Genus Nycticebus, 2 species, SE Asia, Assam, Burma, Thailand, Indo-China, some Malayian states and East Indian islands (lorises). Genus Loris, 1 species, lives in Sri Lanka and southern India."

[David Koot]

I would like to point out that the biogeographical data do present an issue for advocates of a GRGF--one which is not resolved by the 'division of the earth' argument. The problem is, if the species originated from the ark at Mt. Ararat, and were dispersed from there, then why the dispersion patterns noted in the data?

Dave