[Ichneumon]

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. Place by design or by evolution, but placed just the same.

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.

[American in Israel]

So now you expect me to believe that not only does positive genetic mutation occur, but it occurs simultaneously with more than 8 breeding pairs springing up with the same genetic mutation at the same time at the same place. A trillion to one odds occurrence, occurs with TxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxT odds? That is, with 9 breeding pairs 1 to 10to the 167 square odds. 1 two full lines of text zeros following it. Talk about winning the lottery. Man, now that is faith. Or of course, someone might have placed the breeding pairs, but that would be Creation wouldn't it. Specially when you have to take all the thousands of animals and repeat winning that same set of odds thousands of times.

If ID is real, men occurred at the same time as the Koala, so your proof is circular logic at best. Men captured the teddy bears and sold them elsewhere for a good profit. Go figure that as hard odds somehow compared to your infinitesimally minute odds of multiple instant simultaneous spontaneous parallel positive mutation. (punctuated equilibrium).

Species tend to head and breed where the environment favors them, fish tend to go to water, birds migrate to good habitat, bears head for the woods etc. Dang, that is hard to figure out. We have a flu that is spreading world wide in one season with animals under their own power it is just so impossible for anything to go a few thousand miles in a few thousand years. (/sarcasm)

Besides, as I stated before I am not against adaptation, it is easily observed in nature, just trans species changes have never been observed.

Look, it is becoming increasingly obvious that you are defending your Atheist ways, and not interested in a observational discussion. I keep having to repeat myself, and beyond sarcasm, I do not see much discussion here. At this part of the game I am busy and no longer bored and do not have time for you anymore. Sorry, hire your own researcher and castigate him.

There is a scripture for you to contemplate. It commands a wise man to not cast his pearls before swine, for they will trample the pearls, turn and rend (bite, tear open) you.

You don't want to hear, fine. Ignore that radio-metrics are now suspect because the dating depends on constant radiation levels, and radiation levels are rising right now. When your constants are variables, your equations are garbage. Pretend that demonstrated errors do not exist, if they disturb you so. Believe that ID only works when flowers and genetics do it, not anything that you may have to answer to in the future. Perhaps you could call it UD for unintellegent design, which frankly the whole evolutionary house of cards is built of. Frankly I find it a lot harder to believe an amoeba knows more about genetic engineering than men, but hey, Got to say, you have a lot of faith.

Its a free world, you can do with your life what ever you want. But life does have consequences...