Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version nyu B notes v1.5 12/10/84; site csd2.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!csd2!dimitrov
From: dimitrov@csd2.UUCP (Isaac Dimitrovsky)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Addition to Isolated Species note
Message-ID: <3570029@csd2.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 21-May-85 11:57:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: csd2.3570029
Posted: Tue May 21 11:57:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 24-May-85 20:50:49 EDT
Organization: New York University
Lines: 58

[]

As promised, I will now review the creationist notes on isolated
species that have come in since the first time I posted my
"isolated species again" note. After combing through my files I
find two such notes, both by Dan Boskovich. The first reads as
follows (for a summary of the discussion which preceded this,
see my previous note - I also quote Jeff Sonntag's last note,
which Dan responds to):

>> 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.
>
> Much more likely than the animals coming from an amoeba. More likely
> than all the right elements of the SOUP coming together at just the
> right time in just the right environment to form life.
>
> Please, don't be silly! Animals can't build boats!

Well, sorry Dan, but in my personal opinion this note would have to be
raised several levels just to qualify as an evasion.

The other note deals mostly with defense of Noah's ark, but does mention
some stuff which could be interpreted as an explanation of how some
species could have become isolated after the ark landed:

> As for the animals leaving the Ark, many animals have been known to
> migrate over very long distances. "The Migration of Animals", Mathews.
> 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.
> [several references on how animals can migrate long distances]

which essentially repeats the explanation Dan gave before (see the next
to last quote in my previous note). But this completely misses the point
the objection that Jeff and I raised to this explanation, so I'll
repeat it. What are the odds of all those isolated species migrating
from the ark (or, if you are a creationist who doesn't believe the ark
existed, from wherever they were created) to "their" islands without
leaving any trace on the mainland, and without some members of the
species also winding up on other, faraway islands. Also, why should
the amount of time isolated have any correlation with the number of
unique species? Or, if you are a recent creationist, as Dan is, why
should the amount of time isolated, estimated using evidence you
dispute but which is independent of biology, have any correlation
with the number of unique species?

Finally, Dan, I hope you don't get the wrong idea from this note.
I appreciate the fact that you wrote about this topic, even if I disagree
with your notes. It shows that you are confident enough in your opinion
to defend it, instead of ignoring contrary evidence. I just wish I could
say the same for the other creationists in this group.

Isaac Dimitrovsky