Biogeography?

The creationists lose very badly there, which is most likely why the do not discuss it very much. They devote much more time attempting to demonstrate the impossibility of evolution than to trying to account for biogeography.Biogeography was part of Darwin's case for evolution -- why are species distributed the way they are? Why do the large majority of species have ranges smaller than what they are capable of? Why are the species inhabiting oceanic islands the sort of species that can naturally get there? At least to within such changes as flying birds' descendants losing flight. Why do such islands sometimes have big birds and big turtles but never big rats? Darwin had long been concerned with that question; during his Beagle years, when he was still a creationist, he concluded that Australia's distinctive fauna might suggest that "there are two Creators at work". And in later years, he performed experiments on checking on whether seeds can survive after floating in seawater for several months.To be more specific:Why do rattlesnakes live in the Americas but nowhere else, despite the fact that poisonous snakes can successfully live on every continent but Antarctica?Why do sloths live only in South America and not in any other place with tropical forests?Why are there marmots and woodchucks only in the Northern Hemisphere and wombats only in Australia?Why are there kangaroos only in Australia and rabbits only elsewhere before their introduction to Australia?Why are there ostriches only in Africa, extinct Aepyornis birds only in Madagascar, cassowaries only in Australia and New Guinea, emus only in Australia, kiwis and extinct moas only in New Zealand, and rheas only in South America?There are numerous other such examples, but my patience has run out.[This message has been edited by lpetrich, 01-19-2003]

I can't make any sense out of Brad McFall's postings. I suggest that we ignore him until he learns how to write prose that the rest of us can understand.