Yeah, OK, change the subject. It doesn't help you though. All you're showing is that remote, isolated locations exhibit many species that are "significantly" different from the mainstream populations of their closest relatives. If you think that this runs counter to evolution, guess again: that was exactly the observation that led Darwin to his theory of evolution in the first place. He happened to travel to the Galapagos Islands; he may as easily have come to LHI and reached the same conclusions.
what are the chances that their tiny seeds would have survived the journey from New Caledonia or Australia ?
If they can survive the journey through the alimentary canal of a bird, I would say, "not bad".
what are the chances that no similar fossiles have been found there (or anywhere else, for the matter) ?
Considering that very few species of anything leave any fossils at all, I would say, "excellent".
Those things said, you can't play the probability game in retrospect. The history of life is (and always has been) contingent upon chance occurrences. Very little about the development of life is preordained or inevitable. Maybe it is an incredible stroke of luck that this or that species of palm happened to survive, but if it hadn't, some other would have filled its ecological niche, and that would have seemed like a miracle, too.
Point to any lottery winner and ask yourself, "what were the odds of that person winning"? The answer is, "astronomically small". Does that make it a miracle?