dimitrov@csd2.UUCP (Isaac Dimitrovsky) (05/10/85)
[] Lately, there has been a strange silence on the topic of isolation and unique species as evidence for evolution. And the evolutionists seem to have had the last word too! I am sure that the creationists only allowed this to happen through oversight :-), so once everyone's memory has been refreshed about where we were, they should have more to say on the subject. Karl Dahlke began the whole thing with his note which unfortunately is not around on our system anymore as it was well worth quoting. Anyway, Karl mentioned the fact that many isolated regions have species which live nowhere else. Also, the variety of these species in a region seems to correspond to the amount of time the region has been isolated. Karl also mentioned the following creationist explanation (admittedly a possible straw man), in order to refute it. > "There is a simple explanation. Gawd created unique > species everywhere, and those on the mainland mingled and mixed. > When we got to the islands,we found some previously inaccessible species. > A simple uniform distribution of created species answers everything." We then went off on a long winding sidetrack, as follows. Paul Dubois said: >Hang on a second. Have you ever actually seen this argument used? >If so, where? If not...be quiet. Yours truly replied: > OK, Paul, just what is *your* explanation of this? > I assume by your irritated reaction to the argument given above that > you have a different one in mind. Paul Dubois responded: > No, I don't. I meant what I said, viz. "what creationist actually > uses this argument?" No acrimony implied. To which Jeff Sonntag said: > So should we just add this one to the list of phenomena which is easily > explained by evolution and ignored by creationists? To which Paul Dubois replied: > Maybe. Or maybe someone could actually come up with the creationists > who make this argument. Or maybe someone could just admit that it's > a straw man, and quit circling around the question. while doing a fair amount of circling about the question himself, as noted by Jeff Sonntag, who repeated the question in question: > This phenomena exists: Isolated habitats often support a large > variety of species which are found nowhere else. There is a correlation > between the number of unique species in an isolated habitat and the length > of time that habit has been isolated. Obviously, this phenomena is > easily explained with the use of evolution. Can creationists explain it? > If so, how? No strawmen here, Paul. Finally, in the person of Dan Boskovich, there appeared a creationist ready to try and discuss this topic. He made the following comments: > This is really not a very big problem for creationists. Animals have > been known to migrate over very long distances. "The Migration of Animals", > L.H. Mathews. > As a creationist who believes in catastrophist geology (The Flood), I would > suggest that after leaving the Ark, many animals migrated into different > parts of the world into places that were better suited for them > to live. Or, many animals may have migrated because of an over abundance > in one particular area. Jeff Sonntag then got the last word: > I see. And all of the species which are found in isolated habitats and > nowhere else just got off the ark, traveled halfway around the world or so, > directly to their isolated habitats (building boats if need be), leaving no > offspring anywhere else, and established themselves where they were supposed > to be. Sounds real likely to me. Which seems like a pretty strong argument against Dan's explanation, at least to me. I mean, what are the odds of all those different species of migrating en masse from wherever they were created to their island, without some of them also ending up on other, faraway islands, and without leaving any trace on the mainland? And, if Dan's explanation is true, why should the amount of time isolated have any correlation with the number of unique species? (If you are a recent creationist and so don't believe that the islands were isolated long ago, change that question to : why should the amount of time isolated, as estimated using evidence which you may or may not believe but which in any case is independent of biology, have any correlation with the number of unique species). So what do the other creationists on the net have to say about this? I look forward to hearing from you, Isaac Dimitrovsky