The bio-diversity of life of Earth cannot be explained by the Flood

This relates to one of the points I made in the previous section but involves land organisms.

It would seem to be extremely unlikely that anything living on land could have survived after a year-long flood. That’s especially true since most living things were buried under many feet, probably even miles, of water.

Therefore, immediately after the flood all living things existed in one place only – the area in Turkey around Mt. Ararat.

Yet now, life is present in all parts of the World. Each niche and cranny seems to have something living there.

What is puzzling is that the vast majority of living things exist only in very narrow ecological niches.

Let us focus on desert fauna (non-plants living in deserts). Even more specifically, I would like to focus on desert fauna living in the deserts of Southwestern United States and Northern Mexico. In this fairly restricted area we find these species:

1. Lesser Long-nosed Bat
2. Common desert centipede
3. Numerous different snakes such as the Western Diamondback Rattlesnake, the Black Mexican King Snake and various pit vipers.
4. Desert Bighorn Sheep
5. Desert Tortoise
6. Fringe-toed lizard
7. Round-tailed Ground Squirrel
8. Zebra-tailed lizard
9. Arizona Pocket Mouse
10. Peccary (whose range extends to Central America)
11. Greater Roadrunner
12. Sonoran desert toad
13. Colorado River Toad
14. Gila Monster

In addition I'm leaving out are a huge number of different birds found in those deserts.

What’s interesting is that these species are found only in the deserts of the Southwestern United States and Northern Mexico. They exist in this one place despite the fact that there are deserts all over the Earth.

What’s even more interesting is that the area around Mt. Ararat in Turkey is a desert!

All of this raises a lot of very obvious questions:

Why did these animals leave the Ark when there was an ideal climate for them right there?

If they decided to migrate away from Turkey, why did they go half-way around the world, through environments that they were not well adapted to, in order to end up in a place that they would seem to have no reason to expect to be there?

If they decided to migrate and if they were willing to migrate long distances, why didn’t some of them migrate to any of the other deserts on Earth? The Sahara Desert is surely a lot closer to Turkey than is modern-day Mexico!

There are some animals that did stay in Turkey, of course. But none of the animals listed above are found there.

Moreover the question must be asked, why didn’t other animals go to North America?

All of that is very puzzling.

But there are other puzzles associated with the other non-desert animals. While non-desert animals would all seem to have a reason to leave the desert around Mt. Ararat, they seemed to be organized in unexpected ways.

The marsupials – kangaroos, Koala bears, Wombats, Tasmanian Devils and the like – with a very few exceptions[1], all decided to go to Australia. Why?

An additional puzzle is how those animals were able to travel to their destinations. Many of them need specialized diets. The Koala Bear, for example, only eats Eucalyptus leaves. There are no Eucalyptus leaves anywhere between Turkey and Southeast Asia. How did the Koala Bear, a very slow mover, travel so far with nothing to eat along the way?

Everywhere we look around the world we see animals that are restricted to every small areas, yet those animals are found in only those areas even though a similarly ideal climate is found elsewhere. How could that possibly be?

The final question is this: why is there no fossil evidence for any of these massive migrations? Immediately after a flood conditions would be ideal for fossilization. You’d expect the landscape to be filled with tide pools and mudslides would have been a continuing danger. Those are the best possible conditions for fossilization.

Imagine, if you will, the impact of finding something like a Gila Monster fossil in Siberia! It would be so out-of-place that evolution would have a very difficult time explaining it but, simultaneously, it would provide creationists with evidence supporting their views.

But no one has ever found any such fossil! Here we have massive migrations of animals going all over the Earth through conditions that should make fossilization a fairly common occurrence. Yet not a single such out-of-place fossil has been found.

Astounding!

That, by itself, is strong evidence that none of this happened.

[1] A small number of marsupials are found in South America. Fossil evidence in Antarctica indicates that marsupials came to Australia from South America by traveling through Antarctica. Of course this is very difficult for the flood story to explain.