Biogeography falsifies the worldwide flood

So how did the dodo get to Mauritius again? Or the elephant bird to Madagascar?

__________________

You don't really expect logical answers to these questions do you?

I don't know.... but I'm hoping a land bridge is involved

__________________

This is complete nonsense. Lions eat zebra, wildebeest and gazelles because those are the prey species that live where lions live. Let some sheep loose on the sarengeti plains and see how long they last.

You are right. Now I suppose these streams that the platypus followed for thousands of miles had no bark and branches around.

To think that such a path existed is silly in the first place. Second there is nothing in any of your posts to explain why only the platypus would have exploited the habitat and why they only survived in Australia.
Homelonging? You seem like an intellegent person. How can you write nonsense like this? Do you think this poor critter traveled all the way from New Guinea and Australia to wherever the ark took off from and then wanted to go home after the ark sailed around a year and landed in what is now the Middle East so it set off to waddle several thousand miles as fast as it could. Of course there must have been no placental mammals that wanted to go along. I guess they had no "homelonging". You know that Adam had to name all the animals so there should have been Echidna in the area the ark left from. Why homelonging??
You think the marsupial mole a small nearly blind animal that lives by burrowing through sand made a decision to travel thousands of miles to get to Australia. Another absurdity.

Predators eat what they can catch. A lion is not going to try to catch rabbits because they won't provide enough food to be worth the energy of catching them but they hunt all the large herbivores that live around them, untill some of them grow too large of course.

What I think is that it is absurd that a roly poly flightless bird could come of an ark in the company of every kind of mammal in the world and end up several thousand miles away without a single mammal of any kind for company. You pile absurdity on absurdity and can't even see that you are doing so. Amazing.
The point is that if they all came off the ark together the placental mammals should have overrun the marsupials everywhere and if there was a route to Australia the placental mammals should have at least arrived in larger numbers with the marsupials they came off the ark with if no other reason than for the fact that are so many more placental mammals than marsupials or monotremes.

They didn't. The hummingbirds that live in Australia, New Guinea New Zealandevolved there over millions of years in isolation just most of the other bird species in the area.

http://www.biology.eku.edu/RITCHISO/...geography.html

So to recap: You postulate that massive forests of Eucalyptus sprang along a route thousands of miles long from the Middle East to Australia so that Koalas could make the trip and the only forest dwelling animals that spread through these forests to Australia were marsupials and monotremes. None of the hundreds of forest dwelling placental mammals spread through these forests to establish themselves in Australia. And of course these forests disappeared after they had surved there koala transporting purpose.

You postulate that there was a network of streams, perhaps in these forests, that the stream dwelling platypus follow and that none of the placental mammals that live in or around streams followed this path to establish themselves in Australia.

You postulate that there was sandy soil that the marupial mole followed all the way from the Middle East to Australia, for some unknown reason and that no other placental mammals that live in habitats with sandy soil followed this path to establish themselves in Australia.

You postulate that maruspial animals like kangaroos and wallabies that dwell in grasslands found habitat that they could follow for thousands of miles from the Middle East to Australia and none of the hundreds of placental mammals that live in similar habitats followed this route to establish themselves in Australia.

You postulate that a chubby little flightless bird somehow traveled thousands of mile to cross a land bridge to New Zealand and not a singal mammal of any kind travel along the same route, whatever it was, to establish itself in New Zealand even though this bird came off an ark in the Middle East in the company at least several hundred kinds of mammal.

Further you postulate that all these marsupials and monotremes travelled all the way from the Middle East without leaving a single piece of evidence that modern marsupials had ever lived anywhere along the route and without leaving a singal surviving species in Europe, Asia or Africa.

Oh yes, and didn't you say somewhere that the giant sloth galloped over to what would become the Americas and the hyperevolved into two toed and three toed sloths?
I sincerely hope that you are "pulling our legs". I don't see how anyone capable of logical thought could think that all of this makes sense.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

No. They would die.

Kiwi's cannot survive with predators, simple as that.

After thinking about this thread, I was Inspired, and I worked out how the Kiwi and Marsupial mole got to New Zealand and Australia Apologies for the quality of the cartoon, but drawing on a 3 inch square mouse pad with my finger is really hard.

Attached Thumbnails

 

__________________
MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.

lol!

__________________
'Avast, ye scurvy dogs! Rotate the rubber baby buggy bumpers!'

and another:

Attached Thumbnails

 

__________________
MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.

troodon: somebody must have been coming on here in my name and saying odd thigs . . . I don't recall saying "snippety snip snip." oh, it has somehting to do with a land bridge, alright. can you guess what it is? and is there somehting wrong with land bridges? what do elephant birds eat, and what is their habitat?

bandersnatch: so they don't prefer any one meat over another? I could have sworn I'd read someting about that sonewhere . . . but given their druthers, and if they had plenty of food all around them, lions wouldn't choose one species over another. also: what about the instinct that lions, at least, ahve to stay in prides? with a maximum of 10 lions on the ark (pappa, momma, and maybe (just maybe) a gigantic litter of cubs) they would have had no temptation to spread out; and Africa isn't all that far off. all it owuld take would be for the Lion to decide "we're going this way" and that would pretty much set it.
no, no, that comment had no bearing whatsoever on the debate, I was simply correcting you b/c I don't get the opportunity to do so very often and I had an uncontrollable urge to do it while the opportunity was open . . . lol of course there were trees around the streams. but the beavers decided to head north west instead of southwest, because a) God told them to or b) it turned ot to be a more convenient route for their lifestyle.
post #99, I think (or thereabouts). you could search the word "thrasher" if it helps.
I don't mean homelonging in the literal sense (like the homesickness I felt when I was in Peru for two weeks this summer) but more of an instinctive urge to head southwest (or northwest or south east depending on the species under consideration), perhaps stemming from God's desire that the animals remain where he put them after the Fall. if we believe in God, then we can believe that he'd put such a sense in the animal's head; if we don't, then the whole discussion is null and void, b/c Noah wouldnever have built the ark in the first place without him. could not the placental "homelonging" have led them to places like the Sarangetti, the Siberian steppes, or your back yard (If you don't live in Australia, that is?)
again, not a conscious decision but a gradual spreading out in that direction, coupled with environmental factors killing off the ones who were farther north.
I addressed this earlier in the post. (sry, but I'm trying to use my time effectively here and I can't afford to retype things.)
maybe if yyou looked at it diferently it wouldn't be so absurd. if God (whose hand was directing all of this, btw) decided that he wanted to Kiwis back in New Zealand, but he wanted the rabbits in Europe and hte lions in Africa, he could (and would) have directed them to go in the diections necessary to get them where he wanted them. since there weren't all that many animals to begin with, it wouldn't have been all that hard; and there also wouldn't have been all that much competition for the Kiwis, even if all the shrews, anteaters and other placental insect eaters in the world had followed them right to the shores of New Zealand, since there wouldh ave been only about 10 of each (at the very most). yes. remarkable. maybe it's because I don't think it's absurd . . .
again, God's hand was working in all of this. if he'd told the mountain goats to follow the Alpacas, they would have; but he didn't, and htey didn't. go figure.
no, I was speaking of the ruby-throated hummings birds which summer where I live and migrate way down to mexico and central America in the winter every year. not as far as the Kiwi migration, but seemingly too far for such small, delicate birds, with such massive nutritional requrements.
some minor corrections:
the forest wasn't all eukelyptus.
the others in between were rather sarcastically stated, but basically accurate . . .
the giant sloth had no need to gallop across, he had plenty of time to hang around.

alas, I am not pulling your legs. I seriously do think that it makes sense. without the idea of divine intervetion, it wouldn't, of course; if you don't believe in divine intervention, then it will neve make sense to you. but if divine intervention in the instincts of the animal were allowed for, and if we recalled that the animals need have left no mark since very few fossils have been formd since the flood and they dind't stay in any place for very long except their homelands, then there is really no way to prove that it wouldn't work, is there? hypothetically, if we could prove that the hand of God were at work in all this, could you then prove that the whole idea was still impossible?
if so, then I must not be capable of logical thought. I believe it wholly. (if I sound sharp, I'm sorry. I'm under time pressure and am having to think, probably harder than I ever have before: another pressuse. I hope you can fogive me.)

data: yes. well. how much does that prove? so if they had the migratory instinct, and the bridge were still open, they would be extinct. however, one of those options is closed: the land bridge, to be precise. so technically we don't KNOW whether they would migrate if they had the chance--predators or no.

Jetblack: are you a cartoon artist? if not, you may have missed your calling . . . very good! (I don't agree with te premise, of course, but hey . . . lol)

best of regards,
the_cloaked_crusader

thanks I have had a few published in newspapers and my choice for university was between physics and animation however there aren't any decent animation courses in the UK so I decided not to bother. I still do it on an amateur basis though.

__________________
MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.