Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How did the Aborigines get to Australia?
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5925
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 97 of 226 (648343)
01-14-2012 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Granny Magda
01-14-2012 7:22 AM


Re: Chuck's CMI Lies
CMI writes:
As ocean levels rose at the end of the Ice Age, land bridges were eliminated and the migrant marsupials were stuck where they were.
What land bridges? Care to provide any evidence for these land bridges? During the Ice Age!? Really, this is spectacularly silly stuff. There is fossil evidence of Australian marsupials millions of years before the Ice Age.
I realize that your actual point was that Ice Age land bridges would not account for the presence of marsupials in Australia because fossil evidence shows that they were already there millions of years before. Kind of like trying to claim that the arrival yesterday in New York of an airliner from Western Europe accounts for the presence of Europeans in the Americas.
{More for the benefit of lurkers, though I'm sure that Chuck will stubbornly cling to his blessed ignorance:}
However, land bridges did exist during the last ice age and, I'm sure, during the previous ice ages as well. During the last ice age, so much water was tied up in the ice caps that sea level was about 200 feet lower. That means that sea floor that is less than 200 feet down had been dry land during that time, thus forming what we call land bridges.
Take a look at maps that also display sea depth; Google Earth provides that feature as well. The Persian Gulf is less than 200 feet deep, though beyond the Strait of Hormuz it starts to drop off; that means that during the Ice Age that was dry land. I suspect that the flooding of that region which must have been well populated may have formed the basis for Mesopotamian flood myths. Much of the Bering Strait and the Bering Sea is less than 200 feet deep, so that would have formed a well-known land bridge between Asia and North America. We can also see lots of land bridges extending from Southeast Asia through Indonesia and even extending up into the Philippines, though there doesn't seem to have been any land bridge providing a direct connection to Papua New Guinea, since most of the ocean floor there is thousands of feet deep.
However, there is no land bridge connecting Asia with Australia. Separating Australia from that Southeast Asian land bridging is a trench that is thousands of feet deep. Not land-bridge material, that. Also, it looks very much like so many other trenches where one tectonic plate collides with another and the one trench starts subtending beneath the other. There is a land bridge between Australia and Papua New Guinea, but there is no land bridge connection from there to Southeast Asia, so still no land-bridge route for marsupials to take from Asia to Australia.
Therefore, CMI's land bridge claim does not hold water.
BTW, supporting Percy's source that marsupials migrated from Antarctica when it and Australia were next to each other, when we look at the sea bottom between Australia and Antarctica we see the signs of spreading that occurs when plates move away from each other, such as we see in the mid-Atlantic expansion zone.
CMI writes:
They could have dispersed before many of the other mammalian varieties.
Why? How?
I concur, though I would have started with "huh?". Creationist migration scenarios make absolutely no sense, even if we ignore the fact that with so many species pared down to such incredibly small initial populations, it would have taken very few acts of predation (hey, carnivores have to eat too) to have brought nearly all prey species to extinction. Plus, with so many species' specialized diets, such as the koala's that require leaves from mature eucalyptus trees (of which there would have been none right after The Flood, let alone along the long trek to Australia), what would the herbivores have had to eat while trying to out-run the carnivores trying to eat them? And most of all, how did the sloths make their own migration from Central Asia to Central America? And how were they able to out-run all those hungry carnivores when their top ground speed is little better than that of a snail?
As they say (I think David Ruse was credited), "Creationism is more fun than science!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Granny Magda, posted 01-14-2012 7:22 AM Granny Magda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-14-2012 8:23 PM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 99 by RAZD, posted 01-14-2012 9:34 PM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 100 by Chuck77, posted 01-15-2012 12:54 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5925
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 109 of 226 (648366)
01-15-2012 3:08 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Chuck77
01-15-2012 2:50 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions
Yes...tho they could have been there prior to the flood also about 6000 yrs ago.
In which case they would have been wiped out by your Flood. You know, that massively catastrophic single-year event that killed off every land creature that hadn't ridden on the Ark. The event that completely changed the surface of the earth, laying down all the geological formations ... again, all within a single year.
When you're making stuff up, you (plural) should at least make some attempt to keep your story straight.
I'm still very curious how creationists imagine that the sloths were able to high-tail it from Central Asia to Central America, out-running all the carnivores in the process, when their top speed on the ground has been compared to that of a snail (and their speed in the trees is only a bit better).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Chuck77, posted 01-15-2012 2:50 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Chuck77, posted 01-15-2012 3:19 AM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5925
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 110 of 226 (648367)
01-15-2012 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by rueh
01-15-2012 2:52 AM


Re: Chuck's CMI Lies
Any scrap of evidence that you could produce that shows how the continents could have possibly moved from a single land mass to their current positions in the time you advocate would do.
It should also be pointed out that we are very well aware of what happens when continents move. The collision of plates against each other and their grinding past each other is a major cause of earthquakes and volcanos. If Chuck's high-speed burlesque (accompanied, no doubt, with Benny Hill music) were true, then history would have been wracked with constant and massive earthquakes and massive vulcanism. Which was not the case.
Chuck needs to do what no other creationist has been willing to do: think his claims through. But another creationist in another forum long ago once revealed their secret: they don't care the least bit that their claims are nonsense nor that their own claims, including the ones made by the same creationist, contradict each other; they only care that their claims contradict what science says.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by rueh, posted 01-15-2012 2:52 AM rueh has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Chuck77, posted 01-15-2012 3:34 AM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5925
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 113 of 226 (648370)
01-15-2012 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Chuck77
01-15-2012 3:19 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions
Why could they not have lived there before the flood? And then went back after? How is this changing my story?
Just what exactly did the Flood do? Kill everything except for the animals brought on board Noah's Ark. Haven't you read the Bible? It wouldn't matter the least where Australian marsupials had lived before the Flood, because they would have all been killed by the very Flood that you believe did happen.
If instead you want to now claim that vast populations survived the Flood where they used to live, then why all this nonsense you've been promoting about how they had migrated from where the Ark had landed? Either those original populations had been annihilated or they had survived. Which is it?
Also, "Flood geology" says that the surface of the earth was changed entirely, which is also what you have promoting here with your talk of high-speed plate tectonics. Wherever those marsupials had originally lived, that place would no longer exist, most certainly not in the same place as before. Either the Flood changed the surface of the earth or it didn't. Which is it?
If you're not inclined to try to keep your made-up stories straight, then please at least try to think them through for once.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Chuck77, posted 01-15-2012 3:19 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Chuck77, posted 01-15-2012 3:44 AM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5925
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 115 of 226 (648372)
01-15-2012 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Chuck77
01-15-2012 3:34 AM


Re: Chuck's CMI Lies
When you finally present some kind of evidence that you have thought your claims through so that you are able to engage in discussion of those claims, then we can finally have a discussion. Because until you have taken the time to think them through, you will not know what you are talking about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Chuck77, posted 01-15-2012 3:34 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Chuck77, posted 01-15-2012 3:49 AM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5925
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 117 of 226 (648375)
01-15-2012 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Chuck77
01-15-2012 3:44 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions
You know full well that I did not twist your views. You should not make such false accusations in order to avoid attempts at discussion. That is not honest.
And you still have not responded to my question about the migration of sloths from Central Asia to Central America. They are very slow-moving, you know, very much slower on land than in the trees. How were they able to out-run the carnivores?
If you avoid considering that long migration of the sloths, then you have not thought through the entire migration claim.
Edited by dwise1, : added last paragraph

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Chuck77, posted 01-15-2012 3:44 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Chuck77, posted 01-15-2012 4:03 AM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5925
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 119 of 226 (648377)
01-15-2012 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Chuck77
01-15-2012 3:49 AM


Re: Chuck's CMI Lies
You are repeating creationist claims and are not thinking any of it through. Discussion requires that you think your position through. You are not doing that. Nor are you the only creationist to avoid at all costs thinking through their claims. Because the simplest way of exposing the falsehood of creationist claims is to think them through.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Chuck77, posted 01-15-2012 3:49 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5925
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 124 of 226 (648383)
01-15-2012 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Chuck77
01-15-2012 4:03 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions
DWise1 writes:
And you still have not responded to my question about the migration of sloths from Central Asia to Central America. They are very slow-moving, you know, very much slower on land than in the trees.
So what? They're slow and? Do you think it was a race to get there?
Here is what your wonderful CMI marsupial article is quoted in Message 90 as saying:
CMI writes:
They could have dispersed before many of the other mammalian varieties.
According to CMI, there was indeed a race. And your "discussion-quality" "response" to Granny's serious question was "They walked ...". Answered nothing and avoided the question.
DWise1 writes:
How were they able to out-run the carnivores?
I'm going to take a wild stab at this one and say...the same way they outrun them now?
And you keep wondering why we constantly plead with you to do something to end your ignorance?
Sloths don't outrun anything; they can't. Sloths are arboreal animals, not ground animals. They avoid predators by staying high in the trees, coming down to the base of the tree only for their once a week bowel movement. When they do leave the trees, they are so painfully slow on the ground that they couldn't possibly get away from a predator.
Trees take time to grow and mature. In an immediately post-Flood world, what trees would sloths have had to hide in. But then to also go quite literally half-way around the world, the only way they could have done it with any degree of safety would have been if a continuous canopy of trees covered every mile of that trek along whatever land bridge they would have taken. Since the post-Flood climates and terrain were obviously very much like at present, we know that they would not have had that continuous canopy of trees, even if we could assume that enough time had passed for trees to have grown enough right after the Flood that destroyed everything.
If CMI's (and, by adoption, your) migration claims are to hold any water, they need to be able to address all cases. Including sloths.
And, no, you were not even starting to attempt to address the case of sloths. Which makes it difficult to believe that you are interested in discussion.
Ah, good, tomorrow's rice pudding has finished baking. Good night.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Chuck77, posted 01-15-2012 4:03 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5925
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 134 of 226 (648417)
01-15-2012 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Tangle
01-15-2012 11:00 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions
The only honest way out of your dilemma is to either accept that this is all a myth or invoke a miracle (or many).
Why can't you just say that God did it then sorted it all out again and move on? Why is it necessary to believe that it was all totally real - which means denying almost the entirity of modern natural science - it must now obvious to you that you're simply wrong. Surely?
Indeed, that is the key question about "creation science": if Goddidit and used miracles to overcome all possible difficulties, then why insist on trying to come up with scientific explanations for everything that Goddidit? What possible purpose could that serve?
Well, knowing the history, we do know the answer to that second question. "Creation science" was created as a legal subterfuge, a deliberate deception, to circumvent the court decisions that struck down the 1920's "monkey laws" in the wake of Epperson vs Arkansas (1968). Since they could no longer have laws that barred the teaching of evolution for religious reasons, they created the deception that they were opposing evolution for purely scientific reasons. So they twisted and distorted and fabricated and lied. And the courts saw through their deception. Ironically, the only ones they've been able to fool with their "creation science" lies were themselves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Tangle, posted 01-15-2012 11:00 AM Tangle has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5925
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 162 of 226 (669503)
07-30-2012 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Portillo
07-30-2012 4:03 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions
First you write:
You find horseshoe crabs, shrimps and clams at the top of mountains. Bottom dwelling animals at 20,000 feet about sea level.
And then you write:
The question is though, do humans, horses and cows live at the bottom of the ocean? What you would expect to find is fossils buried in their habitat, although you do find marine fossils on continents.
So bottom-dwelling animals lived on mountain tops at 20,000 feet above sea level? That's the completely and utterly idiotic claim that you just made.
Which illustrates quite clearly how much credance to give to your rehash of silly creationist nonsense.
When a catastrophe such as a tornado, earthquake, or flood happens, who knows first, the animals or people? The animals usually know whats coming, so they get out of there.
Not only the animals, but also the plants! The trees and flowering plants saw the Flood coming and they ran up the mountains to higher ground.
Portillo, you really need to actually learn something and to stop relying on stupid creationist lies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Portillo, posted 07-30-2012 4:03 AM Portillo has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5925
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 173 of 226 (669883)
08-04-2012 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Portillo
08-04-2012 12:48 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions
dwise1 writes:
So bottom-dwelling animals lived on mountain tops at 20,000 feet above sea level?
The mountains were underwater during the flood. How did these fossils get thousands of feet above sea level? They didnt climb up the mountain and bury themselves. They were smashed and entombed, under the ocean in mud, and pushed up after the flood. After the flood, the mountains went up and the basins went down.
And, actually, you finally get most of it right. The fossils were buried where they had lived and then subsequently that stratum ended up elsewhere through geological processes. That is exactly what geologists also say, though you disagree with them as to how long that took. As well as your ignoring all the other geological strata. And, yes, localized flooding did and continues to happen. Geologists are fully capable of telling rapid from slow depositation, so they're not idiots. The history of geology is born out of geologists looking for evidence of Noah's Flood, which they never have found.
But that's not what you were saying in Message 155, to which I was replying. In that message, you invoked two old, old standard "creation science" nonsense claims (read "bullshit"), which claim both that fossils were of animals living at those elevations and that those animals who could see the Flood coming and were "swifter of foot" fled to higher elevations. Here is what you wrote, in case you wish to forget:
Good question. If there was a global flood, why dont we find fossils mixed up, such as humans, horses and cows at the bottom? The question is though, do humans, horses and cows live at the bottom of the ocean? What you would expect to find is fossils buried in their habitat, although you do find marine fossils on continents. When a catastrophe such as a tornado, earthquake, or flood happens, who knows first, the animals or people? The animals usually know whats coming, so they get out of there.
During the Indian Ocean Tsunami, even though the lives of 250,000 people were destroyed, few animals were killed. You know why? Because the animals had a premonition of the coming catastrophe and fled for the hills. But which animals cant get out of there? The corals, sponges, hydroids, arthropods, sea anemones, crustaceans, and all the little bottom dwelling animals who cant get away. The reason why land animals were able to get away is because the flood took months and months, as the waters came higher and higher. So many drowned and werent fossilized.
Nowhere in that scenario did you speak of strata in which fossils were buried being raised to other elevations. Instead, you spoke only of life living in or moving to other elevations. The scenario to which I was responding was one in which topography did not change -- lower and higher elevations then were the elevations at which everything was buried.
Your "reply" is to completely change your story. You are not sticking to your story in any way. You know full well that you have been caught in a lie and so you are making up yet another lie.
Typical creationism in action.
Please answer me this question. Your actions indicate that you believe that your god must be served through lies and deception. According to Christian doctrine, which Christian deity is served by lies and deception? Let me give you some clues in case you're stuck: 5 letters, starts with "S", ends with "n", has a "t" in the middle, both vowels are "a". Need any more clues?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Portillo, posted 08-04-2012 12:48 AM Portillo has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5925
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 187 of 226 (672055)
09-02-2012 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Portillo
08-24-2012 8:43 PM


Re: Topic alert!
Kangaroos/wallabies got to Australia from a great land bridge that connected Indochina to Australia.
That has already been covered in this topic. As I explained in Message 97 in response to Granny Magda's question:
DWise1 writes:
I realize that your actual point was that Ice Age land bridges would not account for the presence of marsupials in Australia because fossil evidence shows that they were already there millions of years before. Kind of like trying to claim that the arrival yesterday in New York of an airliner from Western Europe accounts for the presence of Europeans in the Americas.
{More for the benefit of lurkers, though I'm sure that Chuck will stubbornly cling to his blessed ignorance:}
However, land bridges did exist during the last ice age and, I'm sure, during the previous ice ages as well. During the last ice age, so much water was tied up in the ice caps that sea level was about 200 feet lower. That means that sea floor that is less than 200 feet down had been dry land during that time, thus forming what we call land bridges.
Take a look at maps that also display sea depth; Google Earth provides that feature as well. The Persian Gulf is less than 200 feet deep, though beyond the Strait of Hormuz it starts to drop off; that means that during the Ice Age that was dry land. I suspect that the flooding of that region which must have been well populated may have formed the basis for Mesopotamian flood myths. Much of the Bering Strait and the Bering Sea is less than 200 feet deep, so that would have formed a well-known land bridge between Asia and North America. We can also see lots of land bridges extending from Southeast Asia through Indonesia and even extending up into the Philippines, though there doesn't seem to have been any land bridge providing a direct connection to Papua New Guinea, since most of the ocean floor there is thousands of feet deep.
However, there is no land bridge connecting Asia with Australia. Separating Australia from that Southeast Asian land bridging is a trench that is thousands of feet deep. Not land-bridge material, that. Also, it looks very much like so many other trenches where one tectonic plate collides with another and the one trench starts subtending beneath the other. There is a land bridge between Australia and Papua New Guinea, but there is no land bridge connection from there to Southeast Asia, so still no land-bridge route for marsupials to take from Asia to Australia.
Therefore, CMI's land bridge claim does not hold water.
BTW, supporting Percy's source that marsupials migrated from Antarctica when it and Australia were next to each other, when we look at the sea bottom between Australia and Antarctica we see the signs of spreading that occurs when plates move away from each other, such as we see in the mid-Atlantic expansion zone.
RAZD in turn replied to me in Message 99, describing Wallace's Line with coincides with my description ("Separating Australia from that Southeast Asian land bridging is a trench that is thousands of feet deep. Not land-bridge material, that."):
RAZD writes:
Hence causing what is known as the Wallace Line that divides species on one side from those on the other (except for those that could fly or swim the distance).
quote:
Alfred Russel Wallace, the so-called father of animal geography, formulated his ideas on evolution by natural selection while observing and collecting wildlife in the islands of Southeast Asia. He was particularly impressed by the sudden difference in bird families he encountered when he sailed some twenty miles east of the island of Bali and landed on Lombok. On Bali the birds were clearly related to those of the larger islands of Java and Sumatra and mainland Malaysia. On Lombok the birds were clearly related to those of New Guinea and Australia. He marked the channel between Bali and Lombok as the divide between two great zoogeographic regions, the Oriental and Australian. In his honor this dividing line, which extends northward between Borneo and Sulawesi, is still referred to today as Wallace's Line. (See the map below.)

You can also see this subduction zone trench formation continue along the east side of the Philippines, and another to the east that is the Mariana trench, the deepest part of ocean in the world.
If you want a land bridge here, you are going to need to wait for a while ...
Ignoring what has already been discussed will not help your case in the least.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Portillo, posted 08-24-2012 8:43 PM Portillo has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5925
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 191 of 226 (672287)
09-06-2012 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Portillo
09-05-2012 10:45 PM


Re: Topic alert!
Do you mean that red circle between Australia and Papua/New Guinea? But how is Papua/New Guinea connected to Asia? Where's that land bridge? Through those deep-sea trenches. And the deep water barrier that coincides with Wallace's Line (see again Message 187).
There's a reason why Wallace found such a great difference between animals on either side of that line: there was no land bridge across that line. And hence no land bridge connecting Asia and Australia.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Portillo, posted 09-05-2012 10:45 PM Portillo has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5925
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 193 of 226 (672342)
09-07-2012 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by RAZD
09-06-2012 11:48 AM


But what then of the Weber Line and Lydekker's Line?
In reality, there's an entire region, Wallacea with Wallace's Line as its western boundary and Weber's Line as the boundary for Australian mammals and Lydekker's Line as its eastern boundary.
This is all described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallacea and at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Line.
The bottom line is still as I described back in Message 97, repeated in Message 187:
quote:
Take a look at maps that also display sea depth; Google Earth provides that feature as well. The Persian Gulf is less than 200 feet deep, though beyond the Strait of Hormuz it starts to drop off; that means that during the Ice Age that was dry land. I suspect that the flooding of that region which must have been well populated may have formed the basis for Mesopotamian flood myths. Much of the Bering Strait and the Bering Sea is less than 200 feet deep, so that would have formed a well-known land bridge between Asia and North America. We can also see lots of land bridges extending from Southeast Asia through Indonesia and even extending up into the Philippines, though there doesn't seem to have been any land bridge providing a direct connection to Papua New Guinea, since most of the ocean floor there is thousands of feet deep.
However, there is no land bridge connecting Asia with Australia. Separating Australia from that Southeast Asian land bridging is a trench that is thousands of feet deep. Not land-bridge material, that. Also, it looks very much like so many other trenches where one tectonic plate collides with another and the one trench starts subtending beneath the other. There is a land bridge between Australia and Papua New Guinea, but there is no land bridge connection from there to Southeast Asia, so still no land-bridge route for marsupials to take from Asia to Australia.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by RAZD, posted 09-06-2012 11:48 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by RAZD, posted 09-07-2012 11:07 AM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5925
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 197 of 226 (672377)
09-07-2012 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by RAZD
09-07-2012 11:07 AM


Re: land gap during last glacial maximum, no land bridge there
Just to hammer the point home even more, the Wikipedia article on Max Carl Wilhelm Weber says (my emphasis added):
quote:
He drew Weber's Line which encloses the region in which the mammalian fauna is exclusively Australasian. Weber's Line is an alternative to Wallace Line. As is the case with plant species, faunal surveys revealed that for vertebrate groups, except for birds, Wallace’s Line was not the most significant biogeographic boundary. The Tanimbar Island group, and not the boundary between Bali and Lombok, appears to be the major interface between the Oriental and Australasian regions for mammals, and other terrestrial vertebrate groups. Thus, for many invertebrates, and birds and butterflies, this interface is better represented by Weber’s Line than Wallace’s Line.
"mammalian fauna is exclusively Australasian" refers, of course, to precisely the types of critters that Portillo is talking about (eg, "Kangaroos/wallabies" in Message 177). Which were trying to spread out of Australia, not into it, but they hit a barrier at the Weber Line that stopped their spread. If there had been a land bridge over the Weber Line, then they would not have been stopped.
If Portillo still wants to insist that his land bridge connecting mainland Asia with Australia existed, then he needs to look for it along the Weber Line and the Wallace Line.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by RAZD, posted 09-07-2012 11:07 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024