Summations Only

I already posted a study in this thread that showed that even without selection over centuries, many breeds of fish are highly adaptable to changes in salinity. In that study, 10 of 13 marine fish species were able to adapt to brackish water, and 3 of 13 to fresh water. Obviously slow selective pressures would enhance this adaptability.And remember in the Pacific Ocean, the effects of the actual flood on marine life would have been negligible, but even so there were huge extinctions due to changes in environmental conditions at that time. Tests of soft seeds showed that some species do survive after 140 days of seawater. (ref Howe). But that argument is largely irrelevant due to many species of plants having seeds with both the ability to float and to grow in beach (salty) environments:
HugeDomains.com According to your timeline the hilltops were visible at 230, they left the ark at 380. For the highlands, that is 150 days of drying. 61 days after the hilltops become visible the first vegetation is detected (dove with a leaf). 68 days after the hilltops were visible, some distant land was dry enough for the dove never to return. Then at 90 days the land around the ark itself was visibly dry. 60 days later they left the ark. So the hilltops were drying for 150 days until the visible land around the ark was dry enough to leave the ark. Vegetation had been growing in the highlands for 89 days by that time. Nothing in this scenario is unreasonable.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

See my post below. Tangle's timeline has always confirmed my position, that is why I never bothered to comment on it before because it agrees with me, and that is clear for anyone to see.So far the only evidence presented that the 5 month salt water inundation poisons soil for long periods, is that this is common knowledge, or self-evident. I believe bias can influence what one feels is "common knowledge", and a short inundation causing long term soil damage is not self-evident at all. If that is all you can come up with, let's just agree to disagree.Edit: I see Percy did come up with convincing material in this regardEdited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Your use of the quote "all the regional anatomical differences that we see among humans today are recent developments--evolving mostly in the last 40,000 years" is a little misleading.On the website you are quoting from, that is an argument derived from one model of human origins--the replacement model. The regional continuity model is considerably different. There is also the assimilation (or partial replacement) model which attempts to blend the two. The article presents a discussion of each of these three models, along with arguments in favor of each. You have cherry-picked one sentence because it agrees with your a priori religious beliefs, while ignoring the rest of a lengthy article.By the way, I didn't find any mention of Noah's three sons in the article. Nor does the article support the kind of nonsense you are peddling here.What I did find, farther down in the article, is this:

Homo sapiens began migrating into the lower latitudes of East Asia by at least 70,000 years ago. Along the way, some of them interbred with archaic humans, including both Neandertals and Denisovans. Genetic markers from these archaic human populations are found in the gene pool of some Southern Chinese, New Guinean, and other Micronesian Island populations today. Homo sapiens from Southeast Asia travelled to Australia by 46,000 years ago and possibly as early as 60,000 years ago. Because Australia was not connected to Southeast Asia by land, it is probable that these first Australian Aborigines arrived by simple boats or rafts. Modern humans reached the Japanese Islands by 30,000 years ago or somewhat earlier. Around 35,000-30,000 years ago, Homo sapiens big game hunters moved into Northeastern Siberia.

What this shows is the origins of human differentiation, based on geography and migrations, "by at least 70,000 years ago." Again, the web page you are cherry-picking a quote from does not support your argument.http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_4.htm

Please discuss the topic. This thread is about the expected geographical distribution patterns we'd observe had faunal dispersion began from a single point in the Middle East into an empty world after a global flood. A global flood is assumed in this thread. Evolutionists, please adapt your arguments to the flood date preferred by each individual creationist.The Bible should only be referenced when it bears directly on the topic.

Thanks for taking the effort to find evidence for your position. I find the relevance of that article rests on the phrase "leach into". They seem to be referring to soils inundated with salt water without drainage. They are probably referring to salt water in lowlands areas (ie hurrican Sandy) and not the brackish waters like the flood that were drained off highland areas. The flood water was not as salty as todays sea water (it was brackish), and so their full one year recovery period not quite as applicable to then. But this discussion is hardly relevant when many plants have floating seeds and these plants also grow in saline environments. So it was not very difficult for vegetation to take a foothold. Someone said the worldwide flood has been scientifically disproved.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

You didn't post a study, you gave a link to an abstract - the actual paper has to be purchased. Did you purchase it and examine it in detail or did you just google until you found a nice red cherry?The abstract says that 13 species were tested at hypo-osmotic dilutions of 10, 5 and 2% for longer than 2 weeks. The tentative conclusion is this: So, in your opinion, what % salinity are we dealing with here?And how are these fish going to deal with the destruction of both their habitat and their food supply. I love that link, not only is it broken, it's about beans. Cows and other grazers don't eat beans, they eat grass and grass seeds rot when wet. I know this because I've let grass seeds get wet and they rot and die within weeks. Not hilltops, mountains. And how many cows, antelopes and pigs do you find on mountains?Next time you're in the bath and you pull the plug out, I suggest you don't stay in there and immediately put your clothes on because I'm guessing that it'll take a while for the water to drain out fully. (Then a while more to be properly dry.) Mountain tops. Yes, the dove with the impossible leaf. The dove that brought a fully identifyable olive tree leaf back only a few days after land became a possibility. Mountain tops.This is the ark that has perched on the top of Mount Ararat. A mountain that is over 5 thousand meters tall. That would be MOUNTAINS.Noah let the animals out of the ark as soon as the ground was dry enough for them. That's what the story says. You see? The surface of the ground was dry - remember, he's perched on top of a MOUNTAIN. So he had to wait a few more days. The ground is, of course still salty and there are no seeds left to grow.You really don't care what you say do you?

I think what has been said repeatedly is that the Biblical Flood has been scientifically disproved.That is a fact.

The first cave dwellings are in Turkey. The first building is found in Turkey. The first towns are found in Turkey. The bible then describes the first civilization in the plain of Shinar (location Arabia) , some of these cities match early Sumerian cities. The oldest ziggurat is found in Babel, where the biblical tower of Babel was built. I'm finding it difficult to perfectly overlap the most Northern latitudes of Pangea with your image of current Siberian basalt. Maybe you are right about incomplete basalt coverage. But the fact that basalt does cover the region and its relative remoteness seem to have slowed research of Permian fauna/flora in the region. Until Siberian fossils of Permian age are studied as much as every other continent, the scientific community will be in the dark as to what extent modern fauna/flora existed in northern Pangea.Read the following excerpts. For many reasons, John Miller proposes a Permian origin for angiosperms and quotes 3 other studies that propose earlier sub-arctic origins for flowering plants. So I am not the first to believe there was a sub-arctic "cradle" of the modern biome in the Permian.
Page not found - Plant Index
There is growing consensus among some molecular systematists and paleobotanists on the existence of a 160 million year old angiosperm ghost lineage rooted at the angiosperm-gymnosperm split roughly 300 MYA, prior to the end-Permian extinctionPage not found - Plant Index
Stebbins (1974, 1984) thought that alpine biomes of northern latitudes might have been the center of early radiation of angiosperms. A similar idea, the eastern Asian centers hypothesis, was put forth by G. Sun et al. (2001). Based on the recovery and study of fossil pollen casings (palynomorphs) recovered from deep-sea drill holes, Hochuli and Feist-Burkhardt (2004) suggested that early flowering plants might have evolved in a boreal cradle. In what way would it disprove a flood? There are debates whether it was terrestrial or marine or amphibious:
LYSTROSAURUS
the teeth of Lystrosaurus were reduced to a pair of tusks. Both of these reptiles appear to have been herbivores. The structure of the skull, with the nostrils and eye sockets placed near the top of the head, the snout turned down at the tip and the teeth and jaws placed low, all suggest that Lystrosaurus was an amphibious feeder, in much the same fashion as the living hippopotamus.I believe the controversy is simply because it was amphibious and became terrestrial during the Triassic. This was due to no herbivorous competition during the dry post-extinction Triassic.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

The relevant portion of Turkey described by the bible is the Arabian plate. This was not under the ocean, but attached to Africa during the Triassic. Mount Ararat is on the edge of this plate, and its current elevation occurred during the collision of three plates. This fits in exactly with what I have been saying. As predicted by scientists there was a northern latitude biome vaguely resembling our modern biome. This is where the birds/angiosperms/mammals/humans would be found. This Siberian region has not been analyzed much for Permian flora/fauna. Possibly even Antarctica has received more attention than northern siberia.During the early Triassic, none of these fossils would be present except for in Turkey, if you use compressed timeframes. So everything you say about the Triassic confirms the survival of northern latitude fauna/flora slowly spreading out from Turkey or Africa. The rest of the world had only flood survivors of Permian lower latitude fauna/flora. (reptiles and surviving vegetation from floating seeds)

It's interesting that you talk about "firsts" when you don't accept the dating methods used to determine chronology.But since this thread is about animals, you should really be pointing to evidence of kangaroos in Turkey, giraffes in Turkey, penguins in Turkey, etc.

Hi Kofh2u,I thought you were disputing the well known fact that high soil salinity has a negative impact on vegetation, but I see you're now saying that post-flood soils wouldn't have been very salty. I was only asking that you not bog down discussion by disputing obvious facts.But the claim that the flood water wasn't that salty and that therefore the post-flood soil wasn't that salty could use some evidence if it has some bearing on the topic. Well, yes, I see that Jar is saying it in just this way. I'll post a note to him. Please ignore any posts about whether the flood happened while I try to get this thread on-topic. This thread assumes that the flood occurred and asks the participants to speculate about the worldwide distribution of fauna had it spread post-flood from a single point in the Middle East.--Percy

This thread is not about whether there was ever a global flood, Biblical or otherwise. This thread is about the global distribution of fauna that would result post-flood from a single point in the Middle East. Please ignore comments about whether or not there was ever a global flood while I try to get this thread on-topic. Thanks.

Ok boss, I admire your tenacity and dedication to fair debate.But......in order to discuss how far they went, we have to consider their food supply. And I reckon that for the carnivores it was whatever was able to walk out of the ark. And, for any herbivores that survived their shipmates, the food was non-existant.So until we can establish how anything eat, I can't see us making much progress. Do we simply accept a plentiful and globally distributed food supply as well?

Could you kindly give me a link where I can look into Anthony Hallam's highstand. Thanks I would appreciate it, and it is central to this discussion.And I have posted enough evidence from many sources proving a transgression across many continents. There is current scientific consensus. I would like to see your evidence that geologists deny a universal transgression, I haven't seen any such proof so far.

If making generalized statements without evidence is a fact, then you have won this debate.