Questions for Creationists (part 4) can you answer the question?

Question

In the contemporary world, different animals and plants live in different places. Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world? For example, how is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia and nearby islands, and few placental mammals are native to Australia? Or why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas ONLY? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why ONLY there. And remember, these animals and plants do quite well surviving in other parts of the world).

OK, let me clarify: they do well in other parts of the world when humans move them there - so God did not put them where they were perfectly adapted.

At least one guy tried to answer with the idea of one-continent.

oldguy63: Please tell us how kangaroos swam to Australia, and lemurs to Madagascar.

All these questions have excellent answers from evolution.

Naughty Pants: once again, you've shown that you're very good at cutting and pasteing, but not at actually answering the question.

Droppinsh: Really, this question is more of a problem for "Young-Earth Creationists." Obviously they do not believe the one-continent split apart in an instant 6000 years ago.

(Or, given creationists reasoning, maybe they do believe that - scary).

Answer 1

Dont understand what your asserting.

Answer 2

Beats me. If evolution is CORRECT they should be elsewhere and NOT segregated. Paralell lines should be drawn. Otherwise evoltuion isn't a SCIENCE. It isn't PREDICATABLE.

All you are doing is DEFEATING science.

Science states things should be PREDICTABLE.

South American natives SHOULD look approximately like AFRICAN natives, but they don't!

Why? Migration? If that is true, then MARSUPIALS should be found in Africa, because Australia was once close or a part of AFRICA.

If anything, it proves creationism. INTELLGENCE put these things in specific areas and they stayed there. Why, because Australia was already separated from Africa so NO migration could happen.

You also forgot the Turkey. It didn't exist in Europe until America exported it.

Almost sounds to me like you're a creationist!

You set up situations that actually defeate Darwinsim.

My science is a bit lacking.

Are APES naturally found in South America?

Australia?

New Zealand?

America?

Northern Europe?

Did man SPAWN from ONE AREA and MIGRATE.

Are we ALL AFRIKANI APE

If we all migrated, then Marsuplias must be a more recent species that didn't or couldn't migrate.

The Kangaroo had to have been created LONG after man.

It would have had to have been after the "bridges" between the land masses ceased to existed.

Taht would mean Kangroos are among the most recent naturally evolved creations.

Answer 3

People, he's asking a question about the flood and Noah's Ark.

In other words, if all species were released from one point (the ark's landing spot on a mountain), how were all the organisms able to cover all of the earth (not all continents are linked, some species cannot travel across the oceans) and why is it that they kept such specificity in colonization (growing in one of many possibile places they could grow)?

Answer 4

Obviously the conditions to ensure their survival exist in the areas where they live. And the same reason might apply to why it appears they never existed in other areas of the world where they might have lived but died out or never took hold because the conditions weren't there at a certain time to ensure the survival of that species in that location. There are a lot of factors to take into account in the survival and growth in numbers of a given species no matter where it's found.

Answer 5

God separated the Land from water on the 3rd day, pangea is much of a possiblity, there is nothing in the bible that contridicts that. There is a present distribution on this world because God made it that way. Just because Christians dont believe in evolution changing an ape to a human, doesnt mean we dont believe in changes of the world. This world used to be glaciers, theres nothing that says thats impossible... whats your point?

Answer 6

yeah and those bananas where do they come from. ya know these questions are so ridiculus, not only do I not know I do noy care that I do not know. How is knowing such an answer gonna help me in my day to day life. What a waste. Usually i just let you guys hammer each other but I just had to jump in and say you guys need something constructive to do like start a 3rd party for our political system something you are just so tiresome. Playing with yourself makes more sense.

Answer 7

I think, originally, there was only one big continent. When the great land mass seperated, different animals would have been isolated in different spots. Why is there no snakes in Ireland? It would be the same for vegetation, according to climate.

Answer 8

So why are some animals found all over the world? What is your point? God created them, they went to those areas.

Answer 9

In one sentence you say they are ONLY in one place. Then the next sentence you say they are in other parts of the world. Well which is it? This question is too unintelligable for me to answer.

Answer 10

your one wrold theory is intriguing. the flood split them apart and the plants/animals went their different ways. im not exactly seeing the problemo.

Answer 11

Then it is more difficult for evolutionists to prove linkage of evolution from one species to the other with your thought. Good for you, you are starting to realize the lack of logic in this fantasy of yours.

The Gulf Between Fish and Amphibian

It was the backbone that distinguished the fish from the invertebrates. This backbone would have had to undergo major modifications for the fish to become amphibian, that is, a creature that could live both in the water and on land. A pelvis had to be added, but no fossil fish are known that show how the pelvis of amphibians developed. In some amphibians, such as frogs and toads, the entire backbone would have had to change beyond recognition. Also, skull bones are different. In addition, in the forming of amphibians, evolution requires fish fins to become jointed limbs with wrists and toes, accompanied by major alterations in muscles and nerves. Gills must change to lungs. In fish, blood is pumped by a two-chambered heart, but in amphibians by a three-chambered heart.

To bridge the gap between fish and amphibian, the sense of hearing would have had to undergo a radical change. In general, fish receive sound through their bodies, but most toads and frogs have eardrums. Tongues would also have to change. No fish has an extendable tongue, but amphibians such as toads do. Amphibian eyes have the added ability to blink, since they have a membrane they pass over their eyeballs, keeping them clean.

Strenuous efforts have been made to link the amphibians to some fish ancestor, but without success. The lungfish had been a favorite candidate, since, in addition to gills, it has a swim bladder, which can be used for breathing when it is temporarily out of the water. Says the book The Fishes: “It is tempting to think they might have some direct connection with the amphibians which led to the land-living vertebrates. But they do not; they are a separate group entirely.” David Attenborough disqualifies both the lungfish and the coelacanth “because the bones of their skulls are so different from those of the first fossil amphibians that the one cannot be derived from the other.”

The Gulf Between Amphibian and Reptile

Trying to bridge the gap between amphibian and reptile poses other serious problems. A most difficult one is the origin of the shelled egg. Creatures prior to reptiles laid their soft, jellylike eggs in water, where the eggs were fertilized externally. Reptiles are land based and lay their eggs on land, but the developing embryos inside them must still be in a watery environment. The shelled egg was the answer. But it also required a major change in the process of fertilization: It called for internal fertilization, before the egg is surrounded by a shell. To accomplish this involved new sexual organs, new mating procedures and new instincts—all of which constitute a vast gulf between amphibian and reptile.

Enclosing the egg in a shell made necessary further remarkable changes in order to make possible the development of a reptile and, finally, its release from the shell. For example, within the shell there is the need for various membranes and sacs, such as the amnion. This holds in the fluid in which the embryo grows. The Reptiles describes another membrane called the allantois: “The allantois receives and stores embryonic waste, serving as a sort of bladder. It also has blood vessels that pick up oxygen that passes through the shell and conduct it to the embryo.”

Evolution has not accounted for other complex differences involved. Embryos in fish and amphibian eggs release their wastes in the surrounding water as soluble urea. But urea within the shelled eggs of reptiles would kill the embryos. So, in the shelled egg a major chemical change is made: The wastes, insoluble uric acid, are stored within the allantois membrane. Consider this also: The egg yolk is food for the growing reptile embryo, enabling it to develop fully before emerging from the shell—unlike amphibians, which do not hatch in the adult form. And to get out of the shell, the embryo is distinctive in having an egg tooth, to help it break out of its prison.

Much more is needed to bridge the gap between amphibian and reptile, but these examples show that undirected chance just cannot account for all the many complex changes required to bridge that wide gulf. No wonder evolutionist Archie Carr lamented: “One of the frustrating features of the fossil record of vertebrate history is that it shows so little about the evolution of reptiles during their earliest days, when the shelled egg was developing.”