Cookeroos are kangaroos. But they are extinct. They don't look like modern kangaroos.
Species living today have been changed by thousands of years of genetic divergence and bottlenecking, as well as phenotypic responses to extreme shifts in environment. I would not necessarily expect any animal type to look exactly the same as it did when first leaving the Ark.
But they had to have lived somewhere on the face of the earth.
True. And I already explained why I expect humans to be clustered relatively close together instead of radiating out across the entire earth.
That's where their bodies would be found.
You need to think about what you're demanding. If you're putting forth a scientific standard necessitating fossil evidence of every creature that existed within the span of a couple thousand years, then your theory is in big trouble.
Remember, you can't even account for the burial sites of billions of humans over the last supposed 100,000 years... because their buried remains (not to mention their stone grave goods) "weren't preserved"... Don't you love how a ridiculous non-answer is perfectly fine when it's the evolutionary model on the line? I find it endlessly amusing.
Again... it's not unreasonable at all to expect a scarcity of human remains in an isolated region versus countless radiations of animals spreading across an unstable earth. We might even look at present day natural disasters for a clue, where animal casualties tend to be far higher than human ones.
Kangaroos didn't leave any fossils behind during their trip to Australia from the Ark.
Should they have? In evolution theory, animals can go millions of years without leaving fossil traces... sooo... I'm really having trouble with your hang-up of finding no fossils of a migration that may have been only centuries. Can you explain that a little better? Or is this just another case of applying an impossible standard that your own theory couldn't even begin to withstand?
They left their fossils where they lived in Australia.
And this is a problem, why? If Kangaroo fossils appeared elsewhere, and in deeper layers, you'd simply infer that Kangaroos evolved and migrated from other regions. Just like we might infer that those were their migration routes from the ark. Biogeography in either model is pretty ad-hoc in general, isn't it?
It doesn't say modern species, it says modern taxa. Cookeroos are recognizably kangaroos, but they are not modern kangaroos. They are extinct. Similarly, the camellid ancestors of camels and llamas in the oligocene lived in North America, and they were not either camels or llamas. They are extinct forms.
Already dealt with the Kangaroo example. As far as North America goes, it's a bit problematic as North America was a major coridoor for animals migrating from Europe or Asia via land bridges. In this case I'd imagine at least some overlap, where migrating animals may have met their fate on the same continents their ecological contemporaries were deposited during the flood.
This contrasts with more distant, isolated areas like Australia. It would be very weird if the flood only deposited Kangaroo remains in Australia, and then modern Kangaroos traveled only to that same spot. Not impossible but it would be an amazing coincidence. (Evolutionists are quite comfortable with amazing coincidences, btw) But I'm not proposing anything like that happened.
Your hypothesis requires Noah to have brought lots of extinct animals onto the Ark, so they could later spread and evolve into their modern descendants. Again, this ramps up the rate of evolution from millions of years to thousands. The whole thing is silly.
Your characterization is silly, yes. You also have a silly (yet popular) view of life where significant phenotypic changes can only be the result of millions of years of "evolution". It's difficult to fathom how distorted the average evolutionist's concept of biological change is because of this. And the disturbing thing is that you don't even recognize your own circle of confirmation bias.
The camellids had to leave the Ark to settle in North America. Some swam back to the Old World and turned into camels (or evolved into camels and swam back leaving no traces in North America), while others migrated south and turned into llamas.
Why do you propose camels would have to be swimming?
Why would they necessarily leave traces on a landmass they were migrating through for us to discover thousands of years later? What scientific principle are you referencing? Again this is REALLY weird coming from an evolutionist who accepts fossil gaps of many millions of years without blinking an eye. (And I doubt you'll actually address this blatant double standard I keep exposing)
That being said, it's also possible the early Eocene (or even Paleocene ) represents the very initial trickle of Ark migrations, and the Eocene-Oligocene represents the point when major radiations were underway.
Within a few thousand years. This is evolution on steroids.
No, it's biology minus wacky evolutionary science-fiction. The fact that Camels and Llamas can still produce healthy hybrids should tell you that they haven't changed that much.
On that note, it's kinda weird that you have animals, geographically separated for "millions of years" that are still able to successfully interbreed....
...and then in other cases, you have land animals "evolving" into fully aquatic whales in roughly the same amount of time... talk about silly.
I mean, do you ever just lean back and think about it? What you actually believe?
Indeed, one of us has a very silly concept of biological change, and I don't think it's me.
