The biogeographical evidence against a global flood is overwhelming. Consider these challenges:
• Lizards reaching South America• Large caviomorph rodents reaching South America• Bees arriving in Madagascar• Lemurs arriving in Madagascar• The arrival of other mammals in Madagascar, including the Tenrecidae (hedgehoglike insectivorous mammals), aardvarks, the hippopotamus, and the Viverridae (cat-sized carnivorous mammals)• Dispersal of salamanders across the western end of the Mediterranean• Dispersal of certain lizards across the western end of the Mediterranean• The origin of certain lizards in Cuba• The appearance of elephant fossils on "many islands," which are said to have arrived by swimming• Dispersal of freshwater frogs across oceanic island chains• Certain frogs reaching Madagascar• The colonization of Anguilla by green iguanas• Appearance of certain South American insects• Dispersals of chameleons across the Indian Ocean• Origin of certain insects in Caribbean islands• The origin of mantellid frogs found on the island of Mayotte in the Comoros archipelago, despite the fact that "[a]mphibians are thought to be unable to disperse over ocean barriers because they do not tolerate the osmotic stress of salt water"• The spread of flightless insects to the Chatham Islands• The origin of indigenous gekkos in South America• Origin of crocodile distributions• The appearance of sloths in South America• The origin of a group of Australian rodents• The appearance of land mammals of the Mediterranean islands (also suggesting that "Hippos, elephants, and giant deer reached the islands by swimming")• The origin of various land reptiles in Western Samoa• The presence of Crotalus rattlesnakes in Baja California
It’s time to admit that Peter Enns was right all along.
Okay, I have a little confession to make. What I just wrote is a half-truth. Those are actually some of the challenges facing evolutionary biogeography:
I've seen it written that evidence is always evidence for something. I disagree with that. Evidence is open to interpretation based on one's presuppositions. That's an argument out of AIG's playbook that I agree with. If one's definition of evidence constitutes empirical data, then one will always have some doubt about the evidence until such a time as one determines which conclusion one likes best based on some other reason. Then one determines how the evidence fits the conclusion. this is mitigated by the fact that some evidence is so strongly in opposition of some conclusions that one must either refine the conclusion to account for it or accept some other conclusion begrudgingly. The difference is in how strongly one is against opposing conclusions.
ReplyDelete