How did animal get to isolated places after the flood?

God moved them the same way you move humpback whales: With a Klingon Bird of Prey.

Here's a thread that went to sleep before it got anywhere. Thought I might give it another chance.

---

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

​

The thread about this map can be found here.

What the hell do I have to do to get a simple answer for a simple question?

---

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

​

The thread about this map can be found here.

I believe we can all agree that plants are much less mobile than animals are. So how did they migrate from eastern Turkey to their present localities, such that so many species are native to those localities and are not native to any other locality? Even though they can flourish in so many of those other localities, as evidenced by their success when transplanted (eg, palm trees in So Calif., Russian weed (AKA "tumble weed") in the western US).Furthermore, what about the animals who depend on specific plants, like koalas feeding on eucalyptus leaves. For that matter, considering how long it takes a eucalyptus seed to become a tree that koalas could feed on, how did adult trees get to Australia in time for the koalas to have something to eat? And how did those koalas find anything to eat in the meantime? Now apply that to all the other animal/plant relationships, including plants that need certain animals in order to survive or to propagate.slightly off-topic:
A similar plant-mobility question is raised by the mobility apologetic for explaining why explaining the order in which we find fossils, why "more advanced" fossils are found higher in the "flood deposits". The apologetic is that the more advanced animals could better see the Flood coming and high-tailed it to the high ground, leaving their "more primitive" brethern behind in the low lands to be buried in the lower layers.So what about the fossil distribution of plants? Were the "more advanced" plants able to also uproot themselves and flee to the high ground?

Since no YECer is participating I will assume the role. I don't believe the current state of flood uhmmm err science postulates that seeds or plants were taken on board the ark. Seeds survived the flooding either floating on mats or withstood the emersion. Hmmmm.... The patterns of species distribution (biogeography) is obviously the result of errant floating mats that settled in isolated places. The more advanced plants just grew at the higher altitudes.

What I don't get is how come such a simple direct question has never been approached before? This isn't some geology question that requires 15 pages of texts to answer and refute. I'm just surprised that noone has brought this specific issue up before.

---

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

​

The thread about this map can be found here.

Try looking thru this thread.http://EvC Forum: Biogeography falsifies the worldwide flood. -->EvC Forum: Biogeography falsifies the worldwide flood.

Cool! Ok, let me see if I can summarize the answers in short format.(1) Tranquility base: Goddunit.(2) Brad McFall... I'm sorry, I didn't feel like reading through cryptic essays.(3) dragonstyle: It was a local flood, not global.(4) childofgod: The ark floated around the world during the year when water was seceding and dropped off the animal at the appropriate locations.(5) Bret: creatures in australia survived by climbing onto floating debris and stayed afloat for a year on these debris. They survived by eating floating courses and drinking fresh water that somehow miraculously stayed salt-free for a year.(6) robert byers: super fast plate tectonic movements caused australia to drift apart from other continents right after the marsupials got onboard. I can't believe none of you called robert on his bluff. Did you guys even notice that he completely avoided answering directly how the land dwelling animal got to australia and other isolated places in the first place? He hinted that australia drifted apart in a few hundred years, but he never gave a definite answer. Like I said, I can't believe none of you insisted that he stopped being so cryptic about it.

​

He even tricked you guys into discussing the marsupial "kind" and all of that and completely avoided having to answer how the land dwelling animal got to those islands in the first place.(7) LDSdude: The world was one bigass continent before the flood and everything drifted apart after the flood at a rate much faster than current tectonic plate movements.(8) Bret: abandoned his earlier explanation and concurred with LDSdude along with the hydroplate theory.See? It only took 14 pages to present these 8 very simple explanations.Any other explanation out there?

---

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

​

The thread about this map can be found here.

Gasby, I nominate you for POTM for the fortitude and determination of slogging thru that list. I tried but quickly grew tired of reading post after post, straining credulity to the snapping point. I finally snapped. Thanks for the cliff notes version."super fast plate tectonic movements" That is one of my favorites. It is odd how some of these minor details just got left out of the story but the use of pitch to seal the ark was important enough for inclusion.

Actually, I'd like to see someone with a higher IQ and better reading comprehension skill to outline for me what the hell Brad McFall was talking about. I tried reading his posts twice and I still don't know what the hell his main point was.Added by edit.By the way, Randy should receive an EvC medal for being able to converse with Brad... at least until he started scratching his head and falling over.Added by edit again.You see, I was able to understand bits and pieces of his posts. Admittedly that his posts in that particular thread are a lot better to digest than a lot of his other posts, but they are still cryptic as hell. What bothers me so much is everytime I finished one of his posts, I sit back and noticed that I never got his main point. His references to certain supposed famous people seem to be random and his subsequent points and details don't seem to follow each other at all. It's sort of like having 10 random thoughts at a time and telling your friends about it...Added by edit... last time I swear.Brad McFall also seem to pick people at random to be his vic... conversation buddie. I wonder if I will ever get the honor.Edited by gasby, : No reason given.Edited by gasby, : No reason given.Edited by gasby, : No reason given.

---

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

​

The thread about this map can be found here.

Message 17: We can't say how/why they migrated, just that they did.

It takes someone pretty clued-in to the natural world to even notice that plants aren't just a homogeneous lawn that serves as a backdrop for more "interesting" animals, but rather, heterogeneous and geographically unique communities of living things with behaviors and adaptations as creative and specific as any animal.And honestly, by the time you're that knowledgeable about the natural world, you've realized that the idea that the Flood story is literal truth is really pretty dumb.

How did specific organisms only get to certain islands?The whole family of honeysuckers in Hawaii as an example -- there and nowhere else?http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Zoological_Distribution

quote:

---

ZOOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION (also known as Zoogeography), the science dealing, in the first place, with the distribution of living animals on the surface of the globe (both land and water), and secondly with that of their forerunners (both in time and in space). The science is thus a side-branch of zoology,' intimately connected on the one hand with geography and on the other with geology. is a comparatively modern science, which dates, at all events in its present form, from the second half of the 19th century.

​

Different parts of the land-surface of the globe are inhabited by different kinds of animals, or, in other words, by different faunas. These differences, in many cases at any rate, are not due to differences of temperature or of climate; and they do not depend on the distance of one place from another. The warm-blooded land-animals of Japan are, for example, very much more closely related to those of the British Isles than is the corresponding fauna of Africa to that of Madagascar. Again, on the hypothesis of the evolution of one species from another, in the case of land-animals unprovided with the means of flight such resemblances and differences between the faunas of different parts of the world depend in a great degree on the presence or absence of facilities for free communication by land between the areas in question. Prima facie, therefore, it is natural to suppose that the fauna of an island will differ more from that of the adjacent continent than will those of different parts of that continent from one another.

​

...peculiar avian families include the birds-of-paradise (Paradiseidae), the honeysuckers (Meliphagidae), and the lyre-birds (Menuridae) among the perching group, the cockatoos (Cacatuidae) and lories (Loriidae) among the parrots, the mound-builders, or brush-turkeys (Megapodiidae) among the game-birds, and the cassowaries and emeus (Casuariidae and Dromaeidae) in the ostrich group. The peculiarity of the region is also marked by the absence of certain widely spread family groups, such as the barbets (Megalaemidae), the otherwise cosmopolitan woodpeckers (Picidae), the trogons (Trogonidae), and the pheasant and partridge tribe (Phasianidae).

---

Whole interacting ecologies with certain plants and animals that don't exist elsewhere.And ecologies with certain plants and animals that don't have resistance to common diseases from the rest of the world.The connections between honeysuckers and migratory ducks and mosquitos imported by sailing vessels (whaling ship bilge water) that could then transfer disease from duck to honeysuckers with devastating results.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : diseases

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

It's pretty simple.If God created the flood, and all the inexplanable conditions (by current science knowledge) that happened, then God put the animals back. Godunnit.

Could not resist commenting here..just late reading the post.That's an easy one. Since there were only 2 of each species of these little pouch buggers, God made them all head toward Australia. Two each of every species in Australia (and no where else)stayed together and walked 8,000 miles without being eaten by predators who were then vegetarians...even though the predators had no vegatation to eat after the flood.They traveled 24/7 let's say at an improbable 2 miles a day 24 hours a day (no rest for the Marsupies). It would have taken 4,000 days to get there. That's about 11 years. How long do all these marsupials live? If breeding did take place on the way, in 4,000 days, how many could there have been remaining in between? And then where is the evidence they all were passing though for those 11 years?Here's the answer:1) God told them to all head towards Australia or same general area.
2) God prevented them from being eaten or just plain being dead from any causes for those 11 years.
3) God told those born enroute also to go to Australia and not die on the way and leave remains to be found today.SOOOO, God wanted them pouchies in one place on the planet and no where else for some reason. He eliminated any record of the Pouchies crossing through all the areas through which they had to pass. God made them live much longer than the existing species so they would not die of old age on the way. And they lived long enough to reproduce FINALLY where we find them today.Yea, that's it!