Evolution is Challenged by Biogeography?

Science

(Robert Byers) #1

Yes this is a issue for evolutionary biogeography. They just can’t say the monkeys of S america are the result of convergent evolution or very early radiations of some original type of creatures.
Yet creationists welcome this. The monkeys did not surf the Atlantic. They simnply walked over from the west along with all the other creatures in a tropical weather soon after the great flood.
They simply survived because they lived in trees. The other creatures went extinct miostly and are only known from fossil evidence.
The African primates never moved to the island of Madagascar or across to india or points in between.
They were closer. So sailing the ocean blue is very unlikely.
The only reason they say they did is because they have to. Biogeography doesn’t help evolutionary biogeography concepts.
The Africans didn’t go to the big isle there either. It was settled from India.
The lemurs are primates but from a early time. Great depths of water are great resistance to migration of creatures.
The monkey thing actually shows a bigger problem. Its funny to this YEC.


Pregnant Monkey's Rafting Across the Ocean
(Robert Byers) #2

Okay but I don’t see why a new thread. The monkey claim of sailing the seas and how it was done would include questyioning it was done . Why not?


(Ashwin S) #3

This can’t be a serious claim of you hold to a global flood.
The water is supposed to have covered the tallest mountains… so monkeys surviving because they live in trees is kinda hard to swallow.


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #4

Your comments really work best as independent posts. They are dense with questions that can’t be addressed on the original places you post them. Such as, for example, the part that @Ashwin_s just pointed out.


(Robert Byers) #5

This is all about post flood biogeography. The monkeys surviving in the trees in S america is about the later post flood extinction problems in the americas. Actually there would of been big giant apes and all varities of primates. jUst the little ones survived. yet its a cool refutatation to evolutionary biogeography. It forces them to imagine Monkey Columbu’s.


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #6

@stcordova, our new YEC interloper, can you please give your assessment of @Robert_Byers’s theory?


(George) #7

@robert_byers

Its funny when you think of Australia… hundreds of miles from land…

… and yet somehow Marsupials and only Marsupials (until about 3 million years ago) were the only animals off the Ark that moved to Australia… leaving all the placental mammals behind.

Im laughing all the way to Evolution store…


(Robert Byers) #8

YEC would say that after the flood the water level was lower. so what is now Australia was connected by dry land. tHis concept everywhere. All the earth was more connected. no Mediterranean, no separation of africa from Madagascar, No gulf of mexico and no separation from antartica. etc etc.
the marsupial thing is a favorite topic of mine. i wrote a essay years ago called “Post Flood Marsupial Migration Explained” by Robert Byers. just google if interested.
I would add marsupialism is likely only a adaptation to increase reproduction for creatures the farthest from the focol point(Ark0 with a klimited timeline to replace the earth with life.


(Neil Rickert) #9

That does not help. You still have to explain why the lions didn’t follow the kangaroos and koalas to Australia. It if was all connected by dry land, that should have been easy.


(George) #10

@Robert_Byers

The problem with that answer is it doesnt provide a mechanism for how Zero placental mammals followed the marsupials to Australia.


(Robert Byers) #11

The cat family did go to that area. They are marsupial lions. NOVA did a show on them once. Hoever evolutionism says that marsupials look like placentals because of convergent evolution. that means a rat like creature evolved into a host of types that look exactly like other creatures on earth but unrelated. So marsupial lions, wolves, moles, mice etc.
once the waters rose there was no more migration and so the ‘placental’ creatures didn’t ger there. Marsupials are placentals. just like americans are englishmen with cowboy hats.


(Robert Byers) #12

The creatures that moved to australia were just the same creatures as migrating everywhere. however in far flung areas like australia, S america. adapted, on the spot, a marsupial mode of reproduction PROBABLY to increase reproduction rates to fill the earth before the waters rose etc. a few other anatomical details also.
I see there was a great earth upheavel some centuries after the flood that raised the waters, caused volcanic action, created the ice age, and the origin for fossils abve the k-t(k-pg) line.


(George) #13

@Robert_Byers

None of which explains 100% emptiness of placental creatures on a post-flood Australia… when placentals are EVERYWHERE EVERYWHERE on Earth… except Australia.


(Retired Professor & Minister.) #14

“Placental mammal” can be a confusing term because marsupials have a short-lived but very real placenta of a sort. That’s why it would probably be better if we used the term eutherian to refer to placental mammals. Nevertheless, that doesn’t change the fact that marsupials and eutherians are VERY different animals. In marsupials, their placenta just doesn’t play such a big role as it does in eutherians.

[By the way, I’ve always found the morphemes of eutherian quite interesting: EU (“good, true”) and THERION (“beast”). So placental mammals are named “good beasts” or “true beasts.” I suppose my basketball coach of long ago was truly a eutherian, a quite beastly driver of athletes.]

No. Not even close. (I realize that yours is a tongue-in-cheek statement but I’m still going to have some fun with it.)

Surveys and estimates of the percentage of Americans who have significant English ancestry vary widely for many reasons. Firstly, how is significant English ancestry defined? Secondly, most people only know a few generations of their family tree. The largest figure I’ve noticed in my studies was 40% but no doubt one can find bigger numbers if one looks hard enough.

I’ve traced the country of origin of all of my eight great grandparents’ lineages (and most of my great great grandparents) and only two of those lineages traced back to England and Englishmen. Scots, Irish, Germans, Scandanavians, and others migrated to the American colonies in huge numbers and soon settled massive areas of the growing nation. So, no, Americans are not “Englishmen with cowboy hats”.

Besides, most Americans don’t wear cowboy hats, just as developing marsupials don’t depend all that much on placentas. But eutherians do.


(Robert Byers) #15

It does explain. perfect. The marsupials are placentals who, zap, changed upon migration. They colonized the area and no other placentals got there from the north before the waters rose and separated that place. the famous Wallace line. i think its called that.


(Robert Byers) #16

Well i’m saying they are not different. just minor details of adaptation after migration. This is why they look the same. Evolutionists must invoke convergent evolution to explain the likeness. it makes more problems.

All Americans are englishmen. only a division between northern Puritan/evangelical englishmen and Anglican/southern englishmen.
its about identity and not biology. DNA is irrelevant. they all speak english but not because of DNA.
As real souls all yanks are english folk.
Your right about the cowboy hat but most wore one once.!!


(George) #17

@Robert_Byers, you write: “The marsupials are placentals who, zap, changed upon migration [into Australia]. They colonized the area and no other placentals got there from the north before the waters rose and separated that place.”

Unfortunately for your theory, the animals that were proximate to Australia (in South America), were also marsupial.

The common ancestors of the marsupials in Australia were never placentals.


(Robert Byers) #18

Yes I know. i wrote an essay called “POSTFLOOD MARSUPIAL MIGRATION EXPLAINED” by Robert Byers. Just google.
The creatures in S america also just developed marsupial traits for the same reason as the Aussies. they had the farthest to go, from the ark, and a limited timeline to refill the planet before the waters rose/climate change.
It was hurry, hurry.
Evolutionists must say they wewre part of a single land mass, that was drifting towards Asia etc and from a few rat like creatures all marsupials came. Then convergent evolution made them perfect copycats of placentals elsewhere.
On the internet you can watch moving/still pictures of the last marsupial wolf. Well watch and what do you see. a dog or a altered kangaroo as evolutionists say??


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #19

Or, just link to it:

https://nwcreation.net/articles/marsupial_migration.html


(Robert Byers) #20

Thanks. i don’t know how to link. Hope you don’t mind on your forum/blog.?1