googlef87758e9b6df9bec.html A Sure Word: More About Koalas

Wednesday, May 29, 2013

More About Koalas

A recent visitor commented anonymously on blog “Koalas on the Ark.” He took many exceptions to my arguments. Though he claims to be a creationist, his comments sound more like what I usually hear from atheists, evolutionists, and other critics. I started to write a reply but realized I had written enough to make a post so rather than reply in a comment, I thought I'd simply use his comments to make another post. It's actually longer than a typical post so I apologize in advance.  

The visitor's comments are in blue and are italicized.  He begins very abruptly.

HORRIBLY explained.

That's odd. Another commenter on the same article, “roylopez,” felt it was “well explained.” Of course, “horribly” is a somewhat subjective term and difficult to quantify. I'll put the “horribly” aside for now and see if any specific criticism has merit.

I stumbled onto your site while looking up pics of platypii.

People find my blog in all sorts of strange ways. I'm sure I don't have any pics of platypuses. But, hey, however the visitors get here, they're welcome.

By the way, there's some disagreement over the correct plural form of “platypus.” I lean toward “platypuses.” To me, it seems to follow the same form as “walruses.” No one would say, “walrusi.” Most words that use the “i” ending for their plural (like “alumni”) are Latin. “Platypus” is Greek.

I am open to lots of theories but this thing you've written has mistakes, dead ends, and huge leaps of logic to 'conclusions'.

Wow, how could I make so many mistakes in so few words? For some reason, I don't believe this poster is sincere when he says he's open to lots of theories. It sounds very much like he already has one interpretation of the fossil record and anything that doesn't comport with that is “wrong.” Let's look at a few of his criticisms.

You would lose miserably in an argument against an evolution scientist.

I guess we'll get to the criticisms in a moment.  Considering that I was a business major and am not a scientist, I don't think anyone would expect me to do well against a PhD biologist in a debate. However, I have engaged many scientists online for years (including those who comment on my blog) and I feel I've held my own. I appreciate his concern, though. If I ever have the opportunity to formally debate a biologist on evolution, I'll remember that I was warned!

I am a Creationist.

Creationist” is a fairly broad term. I'm a young-earth creationist. From his comments, I suspect my visitor is not a YEC. I don't want to misrepresent him but if he's not a theistic evolutionist, I would guess he's a progressive creationist in the same vein as Hugh Ross.

But the Bible is not specific on everything.

Yet the Bible is specific on some things. We use the things we know to help us understand the things we don't know. We KNOW that all terrestrial mammals outside of the Ark died in the Flood. We KNOW the Ark landed in the middle east. Therefore, we must conclude that the ancestors of koalas were on the Ark, they landed in the middle east, and migrated to Australia after the Flood. There is no other possibility.

One point you make is that we don't know much about koala distribution before the flood. But we DO know where they Weren't hanging out. There are no fossils, no matter how old they might be, of any koalas anywhere but Australia.

Finally, a specific criticism!

First, this is an argument from silence. He's saying that since we've not found koala fossils outside of Australia that it's evidence there were never any koalas outside of Australia. There is an oft quoted phrase that says, “the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

Besides that, I refer my readers to my article, “They Weren't Polar Bears Before They Got There.” We have found marsupial fossils on every continent. Koalas are a species (Phascolarctos cinereus) and speciation occurs when “kinds” become adapted to their environments. The “Phascolarctidae-kind” (if I may invent a term), to which the koala species belongs, was on the Ark. There were no koalas on the Ark. They weren't koalas until they reached Australia and became adapted to that environment.

Fossils, even if they were created 12,000 yrs ago, of all Australian mammals are found there.

Ditto my last comment. They weren't “Australian mammals” until they reached Australia. Panda bears, too, for example, weren't panda bears until they reached Asia. The bears that reached the Arctic became polar bears. Get it?

Where ever the surface of Australia was located before the flood, that's where they lived.

You have got to be kidding me! This visitor is saying virtually the same thing as the atheist-evolutionist I was quoting in my article. His straw man argument of the Bible was that Koalas swam from Australia carrying eucalyptus leaves, lived on the Ark during the Flood, then swam back to Australia.

Actually, the visitor is probably a subscriber to a “local flood” interpretation of Genesis. In that case, he is using the shifting views of science to interpret the clear, immutable words of Scripture.

Marsupial fossils are found on every continent... but Australian mammal fossils are only found in Australia. [ellipsis in original]

That's really funny, when you think about it. “Australian fossils are only found in Australia.” What a riot! And American Indians were only found in America. Asians were only found in Asia. Australian aborigines were only found in Australia. Please excuse the sarcasm but I thank my visitor for stating the obvious.

[quoting RKBentley] "In the case of koalas, they ended up in what is now Australia." What do you mean by 'ended up'? This implies that they were traveling, and then they stopped there. Huh? How? And along with all the Australian-specific animals?

I mean exactly what I said. The ancestors of koalas were on the Ark. They landed in the middle east. They began to spread out over the globe. Their descendants ended up in what is now Australia. And every other animal that ended up in Australia could now be considered “Australian-specific.”

Did you know that ALL native mammals in Australia are marsupials? That's pretty significant to the evolutionists.

Technically, no animal is native to anywhere. Wherever their ancestors lived before the Flood, all animals arrived at their “native” habitat after the Flood. Marsupial mammals simply arrived in Australia first. Since marsupials generally don't compete well with placental mammals, perhaps it's only because there were no placental mammals there that allowed the marsupials to prosper in Australia.

Panda bears are different since they live, and are from, a huge continent, which is known to have been connected in the past to other continents, fairly recently in geologic terms. Not the case for koalas or any other Australian land animals.

It's comments like “fairly recently in geological terms” that make me suspect my visitor is a progressive creationist. Hugh Ross generally subscribes to evolutionary time lines but believes they roughly correlate to the Biblical days of creation. Ross believes that God specifically created the koala species in Australia and they've been there since. The Flood did not reach them since it was a local event, limited to the middle east.

It is late and I'm tired, sorry if I am coming off as being crabby... but there are a half dozen more points that even a garage scientist would laugh at...
I'm not saying I have all the answers, but this is def full of holes. But you're right, koalas can eat other stuff but eat mostly eucalyptus, because they taste the best.

Well, at least it was nice of him to acknowledge that I was right in saying koalas can eat other things besides eucalyptus leaves. Look, I'm used to being laughed at by evolutionists so that doesn't bother me. Laughter and ridicule hardly rebuts any argument I've made anyway. And if we strip away all the “you're so wrong” comments and look at this visitor's actual criticisms, I don't see any rebuttals either.

8 comments:

Steven J. said...

I would assume that mammals "native to Australia" means, in context, mammals that were in Australia before humans got there. Humans brought along dingos (a subspecies of wolf/dog), a couple of species of rodents, and conceivably even bats -- all of which are currently present in Australia and all of which are placental mammals, not marsupials. I don't think cats got there until the Europeans brought them (likewise for rabbits).

“Australian fossils are only found in Australia.” What a riot! And American Indians were only found in America. Asians were only found in Asia. Australian aborigines were only found in Australia. Please excuse the sarcasm but I thank my visitor for stating the obvious.

The point he's trying to make is this: the Indian wolf (Canis lupus pallipes) is found only in southwest and south-central Asia, but its species (Canis lupus) is found throughout Eurasia and North America (not counting places, like Australia, where humans later introduced it, usually in the form of dogs). The genus Canis, including coyotes, jackals, etc., is even more widespread, and the family Canidae more widespread yet. The same applies to the family Felidae: lions or lion fossils are known from across Eurasia and North America, and members of the cat family are found (as opposed to being introduced by humans) on every continent except Australia and Antarctica.

Yet there is an entire order of mammals, the diprotodonts (including kangaroos, wombats, the extinct thalacines, etc.) known from Australia and not found as living or fossil forms anywhere else. They left no trace in the lands they must have crossed to reach Australia -- and somehow, cats and dogs didn't manage to follow them to Australia until humans colonized the place. That's a rather impressive amount of "change within kinds," I think: the order Diprotodontia includes about the same level of disparity and diversity as, say, the primate order that includes gorillas and lemurs (and us, for that matter -- indeed, us especially, since the order is named after us: the "first in rank," since a primate did the naming). Koalas and kangaroos are much more different from any non-Australian primates than polar bears are from panda bears -- or from lions, for that matter.

Not By Sight said...

I really enjoy these articles and and the fact that the author is very knowledgeable about a variety of required subjects. I also enjoy Steven J.'s comments and appreciate that he states his case in a mature manner without resorting to belittling the author.

I find speciation fascinating and wonder how the breakup of the single land mass into the continents during Peleg's time factors into it all. However, I don't mind that we don't have all the answers and that somethings are hard to explain. I know that one day we'll know.

One thing though, I'm pretty sure the Panda isn't a bear. It's a member of the raccoon family, which I realize is neither here nor there for the purposes of this article.

God bless.

Not By Sight said...

I just read an article that said that molecular studies have revealed that Pandas are true bears, members of the Ursidae family. Interesting. Learned something new today.

RKBentley said...

Steven J,

You said, “I would assume that mammals "native to Australia" means, in context, mammals that were in Australia before humans got there. Humans brought along dingos (a subspecies of wolf/dog), a couple of species of rodents, and conceivably even bats -- all of which are currently present in Australia and all of which are placental mammals, not marsupials. I don't think cats got there until the Europeans brought them (likewise for rabbits).”

By the time Australia was being visited by white Europeans, there were already humans in there. Perhaps the marsupial mammals were brought to the island/continent by them? I'm not asserting that dogmatically; I'm just musing.

You said, “The point he's trying to make is this: the Indian wolf (Canis lupus pallipes) is found only in southwest and south-central Asia, but its species (Canis lupus) is found throughout Eurasia and North America.... ¶Yet there is an entire order of mammals, the diprotodonts (including kangaroos, wombats, the extinct thalacines, etc.) known from Australia and not found as living or fossil forms anywhere else. They left no trace in the lands they must have crossed to reach Australia -- and somehow, cats and dogs didn't manage to follow them to Australia until humans colonized the place.”

Like I said, marsupial mammals don't compete well with placental mammals. Perhaps the marsupials were driven ahead of the placentals and simply beat them across the land bridge connecting Australia with the mainland before it disappeared. Again, not asserting – just speculating.

And marsupial fossils ARE found on every other continent. Koala fossils may not have been found outside of Australia but, as I said before, the lack of fossils by itself is not conclusive proof that koalas never lived outside of Australia. That's an argument from silence.

Remember too, that non-marsupial fossils are also found in Australia. For example, there are plenty of dinosaur fossils so we know that, according to evolutionary dating, the island was inhabited long before the arrival of the marsupials. Certainly, marsupial mammals did not evolve in Australia convergently with placental mammals on the mainland. So even according to your theory, you must account for some mechanism which allowed marsupials to arrive in Australia but prevented placentals from arriving there with them.

You said, “That's a rather impressive amount of "change within kinds," I think: the order Diprotodontia includes about the same level of disparity and diversity as, say, the primate order that includes gorillas and lemurs (and us, for that matter -- indeed, us especially, since the order is named after us: the "first in rank," since a primate did the naming). Koalas and kangaroos are much more different from any non-Australian primates than polar bears are from panda bears -- or from lions, for that matter.”

I don't believe kangaroos and koalas are the same kind just like penguins and ostriches are not the same kind. They may both be birds but they do not share an ancestor. Neither do humans and apes share an ancestor. We can group animals according to their characteristics but we'll save a discussion about the nested hierarchy for another time.

Like everyone else, I'm not saying I know exactly how it happened. But I do know approximately how it happened. The difficulties aren't grave enough to cause me to doubt my theory any more than they cause you to doubt yours.

Thanks for your comments. God bless!!

RKBentley

RKBentley said...

Not By Sight,

Thank you for visiting. I'm glad you enjoy my blog.

You're right about Steven J, also. He's much more civil than many critics I've encountered. The Bible says that iron sharpens iron and his comments keep me on my toes. I'm sure my discussions with him actually help make my blog more interesting. I sometimes think I should promote his title from “visitor” to “contributor” or maybe even honorary, “co-author.”

Speciation is not only a very interesting subject but it's a key issue in understanding Biblical creation. How the myriads of contemporary, terrestrial animals could have descended from the representative kinds on the Ark in only a few centuries is more than a trivial point.

By the way, it's my opinion that the division that occurred in the time of Peleg is a reference to the division of languages rather than the continents. I'm more inclined to believe the division of the continents began during the Flood – rapidly at first but continuing even today, albeit at a snails pace.

Finally, you've struck upon a point I've made a few times in the past. The nested hierarchy is our attempt to group animals according to their characteristics. Shared characteristics are not proof of common ancestry. The fact that scientists could move an animal from being a raccoon to being a bear demonstrates that the hierarchy isn't truly written by the animals' evolutionary relatedness but merely by evolutionists' theoretical understanding of how they're related.

Please keep visiting and commenting.

God bless!!

RKBentley

Steven J. said...

Geological evidence indicates that Australia, Antarctica, and South America were all once connected together, even after they separated from Africa and India in the breakup of Gondwanaland. So the standard explanation for the arrival of marsupials in Australia is that they migrated there from South America and continued to evolve -- and Australia broke away from South America before more advanced and capable placentals could evolve and arrive.

Humans have introduced a number of species to new continents. Some of these were accidental: no one decided that North America was incomplete without black and brown rats, but they stowed away on ships. Some were introduced deliberately, from cows and pigs (including feral razorbacks) to starlings (because someone decided America was incomplete if it didn't have every bird mentioned in Shakespeare!). Note that to introduce an animal, it has to be fairly abundant where you're coming from, and either good at stowing away or useful to humans in some way (e.g. making up our flocks and herds). I doubt that Noah's descendants would have kept herds of kangaroos rather than, say, sheep or goats, and a thalacine seems an odd thing to hide in the crevices of a ship's hold. So I don't think the "introduced marsupials" idea has much promise. As for marsupials simply winning the race to Australia, I don't find it especially plausible (if you're going to be a placental chauvinist, you should expect them to be better at reaching and colonizing new lands than marsupials), but it doesn't suffer from the same implausibilities as the introduced marsupial idea.

Granted, there could be fossil diprotodonts, even fossil macropodids (the kangaroo family) still undiscovered in Asia (it's a big place). Though to the extent that you expect this argument to be taken seriously, you should never emphasize gaps in the fossil record as an argument against evolution again.

RKBentley said...

Steven J,

Perhaps the idea of intentional introduction of marsupials is the least plausible. Please note that kangaroos are used for food and koalas are just cute so people may have brought these intentionally. However, it's less likely anyone would intentionally bring marsupial moles or Tasmanian devils.

I agree that Australia was probably once connected to the other continents. However, your scenario that the separation neatly divided placental and marsupial mammals suffers from its own flaws. If marsupial mammals evolved independently on the island/continent, how have marsupials made it to the other continents – including the marsupial opossum I saw in my own front yard a few weeks ago? Did they swim to the mainland? Did someone intentionally bring them because they're just so darned cuddly? And NO placental mammals were included? It's hard to imagine a divide being that neat. It's not an entirely impossible theory; it's about as likely as my “marsupials reached there first” explanation.

Finally, questioning the gaps in the fossil record is hardly an argument from silence. Darwin believed if his theory were true, there should be innumerable examples of finely graduating transitional forms in the fossil record. We're just asking to see them. It's true they could just not have yet been found but it's also true they simply never existed. In the end, though, it's your theory that predicted them so I'll leave it up to others to weigh the significance of their absence.

Thanks again for your comments. God bless!!

RKBentley

Steven J. said...

Darwin believed if his theory were true, there should be innumerable examples of finely graduating transitional forms in the fossil record.

Darwin believed no such thing. Now, it's important to note that Darwin was talking, specifically, about cases where there were in fact rich series of fossils: e.g. cases where thousands of specimens of one species of trilobite are succeeded by another, similar but distinct species, which is in turn succeeded by yet another. It would be no problem if fossils in general or fossils of various particular groups were simply very rare; the theory as such does not predict that fossils will exist, much less be common, much less that all groups will leave good fossil records.

But where fossil lineages are richly preserved, the idea of gradual modification implies that intermediates between species (that is, linking forms between groups no more different than, say, polar bears and brown bears) should exist. Such intermediates are rarely found. Darwin explained this in terms of undetected gaps in the fossil record. Nowadays, it is more common to explain this in terms of fairly rapid gradual evolution in local, isolated populations (followed by the new species spreading out and replacing the old) rather than slow gradual evolution over the entire range of a species.

Note, importantly, that the sort of missing intermediates that bothered Darwin were intermediates between species. We know that change from one species to another (speciation) is possible; several examples have been observed. Most creationists have no problem with speciation. So the level of evolutionary change that Darwin worried was missing from the fossil record is precisely the level that [a] can be directly observed in the present and [b] is generally admitted by creationists.