What do you think of the item below I was e-mailed?
How did Various Animals get from the Ark to Isolated Places such as
Australia?
There is no doubt that the whole issue of post-Flood animal migration
patterns presents some tough problems and research challenges to the
Biblical creation model. There are severe practical limitations on our
attempts to understand the hows and whys of something which happened
once,
was not recorded in detail, and cannot be repeated.
Let's begin by reaffirming that God's Word does indeed reveal, in the
plainest possible terms, that the whole globe was inundated with a
violent,
watery cataclysm. The only survivors were the inhabitants of the Ark,
which
included at least one breeding pair of every kind of land-dwelling,
air-breathing creature.
Any difficulties in our ability to explain every single situation in
detail
must therefore be a reflection of our limited understanding. When
Krakatoa
erupted in 1883, the island remnant remained lifeless for some years,
but
was eventually colonized by a surprising variety of creatures,
including not
only insects and earthworms, but birds, lizards, snakes and even a few
mammals. (See figure 119) One would not have expected some of this
surprising array of creatures to have been able to cross the ocean as
they
obviously did. Even though these were in the main smaller than some of
the
creatures we will discuss here, it usefully illustrates the limits of
our a
priori imaginings on such things.
For the most part, the animals of Noah's day were faced with far fewer
such
apparently insuperable difficulties. The Ararat region is more or less
the
mathematical centre of the earth's land-masses. {1}
Evolutionary anthropologists themselves have no difficulty in
acknowledging
that men and animals were once freely able to cross the Bering Strait,
which
separates Asia and the Americas. In fact, before the idea of
continental
drift became popular, evolutionists taught and believed that a lowering
of
the sea level during an ice age (with more water locked up at the
poles)
would mean that there were land bridges enabling dry-land passage from
Europe most of the way to Australasia, for example. (See figure 118)
The existence of some deep-water stretches along this route is
consistent
with this explanation; evolutionist geologists themselves believe there
have
been major tectonic upheavals, accompanied by substantial rising and
falling
of sea-floors, in the time-period which they themselves associate with
an
ice age. For instance, parts of California are believed to have been
raised
many thousands of feet from what was the sea-floor during this ice age
period, {2} which they term Pleistocene (one of the most recent of the
supposed geological time periods). In the same way, other dry-land
areas,
including parts of these land bridges, fell to become submerged at
around
the same time. Most Pleistocene sediments are regarded by creationist
geologists as post-Flood, the period in which these major migrations
would
have taken place.
There is a widespread, but mistaken, belief that marsupials are found
only
in Australia, thus supporting the idea that they must have evolved
here.
Live marsupials are found also in America, for instance, and fossil
marsupials even in Europe. The recent discovery of a fossil platypus
tooth
in South America stunned the scientific community. {3} Therefore, in
evolutionary terms, since they are all believed to have come from a
common
ancestor, migration between Australia and other areas must have been
possible.
Creationists generally believe there was one great Ice Age after, and
as a
consequence of, the Flood. {4} This made it possible for animals to
migrate
over land-bridges for centuries. Those creationists who do accept some
form
of continental break-up after the Flood {5} often believe this to have
been
in the days of Peleg. This again would mean several centuries for
animals to
disperse, in this instance without the necessity of land-bridges.
How did animals make the long journey? Even though there have been
isolated
reports of individual animals making startling journeys of thousands of
miles, such abilities are not even necessary. A very small number of
rabbits
were released in Australia by early settlers. Wild rabbits are now
found at
the very opposite corner (in fact, every corner) of this vast
continent.
Does that mean that an individual rabbit had to be capable of crossing
the
whole of Australia? Of course not. Creation speakers are often asked
mockingly, "Did the kangaroo hop all the way to Australia?" We see by
the
rabbit example that this is a somewhat foolish question. However, let
us
answer it, anyway.
Did the Kangaroo Hop all the Way to Australia?
Populations of animals may have had centuries to migrate, relatively
slowly,
over many generations.
Incidentally, the opposite question (also common), as to whether the
two
kangaroos hopped all the way from Australia to the Ark, is also easily
answered. The continents we now have, with their load of
Flood-deposited
sedimentary rock, are not the same as whatever continents there may
have
been in the pre-Flood world. We also have no information as to how
animals
were distributed. Kangaroos (as is true for any other creature) may not
have
been on any isolated land-mass. (See figure 120)
In fact, #Ge 1:9 suggests that there may have been only one land-mass.
("Let
the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and
let
the dry land appear".) For all we know, kangaroos might have been
feeding
within a stone's throw of Noah while he was building the Ark.
It may be asked, if creatures were migrating to Australia over a long
time
(which journey would have included such places as Indonesia,
presumably) why
do we not find their fossils en route in such countries? Fossilization
is a
rare event, requiring, as a rule, sudden burial to prevent
decomposition.
Lions lived in Palestine until relatively recent times. Not
surprisingly, we
do not find lion fossils in Palestine, yet this doesn't prevent us
believing
the many historical reports of their presence. The millions of bison
that
once roamed the United States of America have left virtually no
fossils. So
why should it be a surprise that small populations, presumably under
migration pressure from competitors and/or predators, and thus living
in
only one area for a few generations at most, should leave no fossils?
Another issue is the question of why certain animals (and plants) are
uniquely found in only one place. Why is species x found only in
Madagascar?
And species y only in the Seychelles? Many times, questions on this are
phrased to indicate that the questioner believes that this means that
species y headed only in that one direction, and never migrated
anywhere
else. But this is not so, of course. All that the present situation
indicates is that these are now the only places where x or y still
survive.
The ancestors of present-day kangaroos may have established daughter
populations in different parts of the world, which subsequently became
extinct. Perhaps only those marsupials that reached Australia ahead of
the
placental mammals (we are not suggesting anything other than random
processes in choice of destination), to be subsequently isolated from
most
of the latter, have been able to survive and prosper.
Palm Valley in Central Australia is host to a unique species of palms,
Livingstonia mariae, found nowhere else in the world (Figure 1) (See
figure
121). Does this necessarily mean that the seeds for this species
floated
only to this one little spot? Not at all. Current models of post-Flood
climate indicate that the world is much drier now than it was in the
early
post-Flood centuries. Evolutionists themselves agree that in recent
times
(by evolutionary standards), the Sahara was lush and green, and Central
Australia had a moist, tropical climate. For all we know, the
Livingstonia
mariae palm may have been widespread over much of Australia, and
perhaps
even in other places which are now dry, such as parts of Africa.
The palm has survived in Palm Valley because there it happens to be
protected from the drying out which affected the rest of its vast
Centralian
surrounds. Everywhere else, it happened to die out.
Incidentally, this concept of changing vegetation with changing climate
should be kept in mind when considering post-Flood animal migration.
Especially because of the objections (and caricatures) which may be
presented. For instance, how could creatures that today need a
rainforest
environment, trudge across millions of acres of parched desert on the
way to
where they now live? The answer is that the desert simply wasn't
desert!