Universal Common Ancestry: A Comprehensive Critique (2)

Universal Common Ancestry: A Comprehensive Critique (2) Written by Casey Luskin - Translated by Muath Yahya 2. Does the manual support the common ancestor? A. Biogeography Biogeography is the study of the distribution of organisms in time and space throughout the history of life. Advocates of neo-Darwinism usually maintain that biogeography strongly supports their view. For example, the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), a pro-Darwin lobby group, cites "harmoniousness between biobiology and evolutionary patterns" and argues, "this compatibility is what is expected from the regression pattern of a common ancestor."10 However, much of the biogeography data has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution, and does not provide special evidence for a common ancestor. It can be easily explained as a result of migration and continental drift; two ideas that are convincing and practically accepted by everyone in this debate. Evolutionary explanations of biogeography fail when terrestrial or freshwater organisms appear in a location (such as an island or an isolated continent) in which the mechanisms of migration cannot explain how these species arrived from their proposed evolutionary ancestors. In other words, take any two populations of organisms, and the proponents of divine evolution claim that if we go back enough, they must be linked in space and time by some common origin. For example, a severe dilemma facing the common ancestor hypothesis of biogeography is the origin of South American monkeys, called "New World monkeys". Depending on molecular and morphological evidence, New World monkeys are believed to have descended from "Old World" or African "Nissenosa" monkeys. The fossil record shows that apes lived in South Africa about 30 million years ago.11 But the open plates show that Africa and South America separated about 100-120 million years ago, and South America was an isolated island continent 80 to 3.5 million years ago.12 If South American apes separated from African apes about 30 million years ago, the New Darwinism must somehow explain how the apes crossed hundreds, if not thousands, of kilometers! This poses a major problem for the common ancestor; a problem known to a number of experts. A textbook by HarperCollins on human evolution states that "the origin of the Platyrhynes has puzzled paleontologists for decades ... where and how the apes arrived in South America."13 Paleontologists John Fleagle and 66-century paleontologists Christopher Gilbert explain that "most aspects of biogeography have been challenging for the evolution of the Platte." For those who are not familiar with the explanations of evolutionary scientists, their responses to such dilemmas would thus be almost implausible. They do not assume that the common origin can be wrong, but apes must have rode the width of the Atlantic Ocean, from Africa to South America, to colonize the New World. HarperCollins's University book explains, "There is of course the hypothesis of rowing hypothesis" that apes evolved from primitive coughs only for one time." Fligel and Gilbert acknowledge that the rowing hypothesis "highlights a difficult biogeographical problem" because "South America is at least 2,600 km [1,600 mi] away from Africa, making it seem unlikely that there is a phylogenetic and biogeographic link between the ape groups of the two continents."16 But they are committed to a common ancestor, and are bound to find such a "link", whether or not! Opponents of considering non-evolutionary options, concluded that "the rowing hypothesis is the closest explanation to the biogeographic origin of primitive coughs."17 In other words, the rowing hypothesis of "excluded" apes was made "probable" only because they assumed that the common origin must be true. Of course, even the rowing hypothesis faces serious difficulties. Mammals like apes have a high metabolic rate and need large amounts of food and water.18 Thus, Fligel and Gilbert admit that "the biological spread through the water during the evolution of primates seems really spectacular to the level of mammals," and conclude, "the reasons for the spread of rowing during the evolution of primates remain unexplained."20 Or, as another expert puts it, "the mechanical aspect of the spread of New World monkeys is unrealistic."20 This is not the only case in which evolutionary biologists are forced to invoke kayaking or fictional mechanisms of ocean propagation to solve difficult problems. Another biogeographic puzzle includes the presence of large South American lizards and capillary reptiles22, the arrival of bees, lemurs and other mammals in Madagascar23, the appearance of elephant fossils on diverse islands24, the appearance of freshwater frogs in isolated oceanic chains25, and many other examples.26 This problem is found in extinct species as well. A 2007 paper in the Annals of Geophysics notes "the problem of the undissolved dissociation of fossils on the other side of the Atlantic."27 However, this paper does not warrant rowing, instead it suggests something even further: bioassemblies have become separated by the "co-extended earth"; a geological hypothesis that has long been taken for granted (differs from modern accepted theories of plate ligation). A 2005 review in Trends in Ecology and Evolution illustrates the crux of the problem: "A traditional problem in biogeography is to explain why certain terrestrial and freshwater species have geographic distributions separated by the ocean. Why are southern beech (Nothofagus spp.) found in Australia, New Zealand, New Guinea and South America? Why is there eguanas on the Fiji Islands, when all their relatives are in the New World?".28 After taking into account several "unexpected" biogeographic examples, the review concludes, "These situations reinforce a general message of great evolutionism [Darwin]: by giving it enough time, many things that may seem unlikely can happen."29 Indeed, the word "excluded" expresses the message to be conveyed here. If you are going to maintain a common ancestor, you must accept some anomalous biogeographic claims. When evolutionary scientists are forced to resort to superstitious "extended Earth" hypotheses, or "excluded" explanations for species rowing across the oceans, the common ancestor is clearly challenged. Follows... — Source: Published on Facebook's "Braheen Center" page https://www.facebook.com/braheen.org/posts/pfbid02i7LLzaQZrp1Cv5n6B9DurfqMo6HmTdw3J58SWiQTW9yxsBHHsUnDm45ws5QBsPh1l