"I find it curious that you can prove that there was no genetic bottleneck in the past, as all genetics stem even in evolution from the ultimate genetic bottleneck, the original breeding pair."
Another reason that Adam and Eve are myths. It is not possible for all of mankind to be the product of 2 people. On a different note, are you saying that their children married each other? Was incest somehow OK then? You can't have it both ways.
"You simply do not understand how Koala's got to America and Europe either."
Yes I do. I asked you how they got to Australia after the flood though. Don't change the subject. Noah didn't take them there. They only eat one type of tree. How did they swim that far? Or the kangaroo. It's easier to make up a story about a worldwide flood when your *world* is as small as was thought of in ancient times. We know better now.
Nope, sorry. Evolution does not proceed via "original breeding pairs". Even during species-to-species transitions, there are almost always large breeding populations, not a single "pair".
You simply do not understand how Koala's got to America and Europe either.
On boats and planes, of course. That's not hard to understand at all. People found them in Australia and then brought some back to other continents for zoos and such. Duh.
Now why don't you answer CarolineGuitarman's original question:
Or your explanation for how the koala got to Australia.Go for it. According to the creationist "model", the koalas had to get from wherever the Ark landed, to Australia, without leaving any any stragglers behind along the way. Are koalas really, *really* good swimmers? And what possessed them to leave a perfectly good mainland, island-hop across Indonesia swimming over large sections of the Indian Ocean, dive into the Timor Sea, and swim 300 miles nonstop until they arrived in Australia?
Most likely in a cage because they are so darn cute, the same reasons Koala's are around the world right now.
Nice try, but no. Koalas lived in Australia long before any humans did.
And even if they hadn't, your "people hand-carried all the animals to their modern locations" hand-waving just doesn't hold water. In your scenario, there were only eight people after that big flood thingy, so clearly they couldn't have immediately scooped up all several million species of animals and carted them off to their tens of thousands of present locations. At the very least, the people would have to breed really intensively for many generations before there would be enough people to do such a massive animal relocation project. But by that time, all the animals would have done their own breeding, and in order to completely relocate all of the animals which are found in only certain parts of the world, you'd need even *more* people to round up every single one of the now thousands of animals of a given species, etc. etc., or else you'd be leaving lots of them clustered around the original Ark dump spot, and there's no spot on Earth with that kind of riotous biodiversity.
Furthermore, the majority of species *are* found only in specific regions, so the whole "people moved them" hypothesis just gets sillier and sillier. Plus, why would ancient man care to do the alleged relocation in such specific biogeographic ways? Why are most marsupials "relocated" to Australia? Why are llamas and similar animals only in the Americas? How did those folks manage to move entire highly interrelated ecosystems intact?
Needs work.