Distribution of plants and land animals

[Moksha]

I was wondering about the distribution of plants and land animals around the world. Do you think Noah and Company made a study of compatible habitats for the various animals and plants, based on careful taxonomy and meteorological forethought?

For instance, it must have been a no brainer to plant the eucalyptus trees and then leave the koalas with them, but what of the decision to group most marsupials together in Australia and Tasmania? Or to separate the the Indian from the African elephants? What about putting the llamas, alpacas, vicuñas and guanacos in South America while assigning the rest of the camelids to Africa and Asia? What about dropping the Chinese members of the clan off on the banks of the Yellow River?

Anyway, I thought this might make an interesting topic.

[LocalFarms]

I think that it is quite possible there were more families like Noah's that we don't have record of.

[pam]

How do we know that those things were planned like that and animals didn't adapt to the vegetation of their locality?

[Justice]

Or, people took animals with them to various locations and they disbursed that way?

[Moksha]

Or, people took animals with them to various locations and they disbursed that way?

Glad I wasn't the one toting Bengal Tigers to Bengal and Siberian Tigers to Siberia.

Speaking of Siberia, that would be a place to have a good Yak.

:)

[Guest mormonmusic]

Some of the redistribution happens by the will of the animals. I read an article about how crocodiles can travel long distances by following major currents. They can't swim very well for long periods of time due to their tiny arms, so they wait until the currents go the way they want them to go, and then ride them.

Crocodiles ride ocean currents for ocean travel)

[Traveler]

I was wondering about the distribution of plants and land animals around the world. Do you think Noah and Company made a study of compatible habitats for the various animals and plants, based on careful taxonomy and meteorological forethought?

For instance, it must have been a no brainer to plant the eucalyptus trees and then leave the koalas with them, but what of the decision to group most marsupials together in Australia and Tasmania? Or to separate the the Indian from the African elephants? What about putting the llamas, alpacas, vicuñas and guanacos in South America while assigning the rest of the camelids to Africa and Asia? What about dropping the Chinese members of the clan off on the banks of the Yellow River?

Anyway, I thought this might make an interesting topic.

It appears to me that the only real thing that can be concluded concerning plant and animal life following the flood is that the scripture account is incomplete. My conclusion from that is to focus on what the scriptures are tellings us. That is that man kind was divided into 3 main groups following the sons of Noah.

The Traveler

[Snow]

I was wondering about the distribution of plants and land animals around the world. Do you think Noah and Company made a study of compatible habitats for the various animals and plants, based on careful taxonomy and meteorological forethought?

For instance, it must have been a no brainer to plant the eucalyptus trees and then leave the koalas with them, but what of the decision to group most marsupials together in Australia and Tasmania? Or to separate the the Indian from the African elephants? What about putting the llamas, alpacas, vicuñas and guanacos in South America while assigning the rest of the camelids to Africa and Asia? What about dropping the Chinese members of the clan off on the banks of the Yellow River?

Anyway, I thought this might make an interesting topic.

I think that your questions will go over the heads of those to whom they were directed.

[Snow]

Or, people took animals with them to various locations and they disbursed that way?

Here's a problem with that.

Noah's flood happened thousands of years ago. Llamas have existed in South America for millions and millions of years.

[pam]

Then you get back to the argument as to whether the flood was worldwide or not.

[LocalFarms]

Then you get back to the argument as to whether the flood was worldwide or not.

I think the flood was world-wide as far as it mattered for those who witnessed it and gave us the account. The main argument that the flood had to be world wide is that it is of one type with babtism, in other words it had to be total submersion. I agree with Traveler though that we don't have a complete record.

[pam]

Oh I'm with you Local. Just that we've had that argument several times and this thread and some of the comments in it brought it to mind. That it could bring back up the argument again.

[Dravin]

Some of the redistribution happens by the will of the animals. I read an article about how crocodiles can travel long distances by following major currents. They can't swim very well for long periods of time due to their tiny arms, so they wait until the currents go the way they want them to go, and then ride them.

Crocodiles ride ocean currents for ocean travel)

[HiJolly]

how deep? Is 1mm of water deep enough?

Well there you go. A decent rainfall covers it. >whew<

Global flood? I don't think so. Wonder how long it'll take for the Ensign editorial staff to get it. There you go, Pam -- a polemical post that had to happen, sooner or later, in this thread...

HiJolly

[Seminarysnoozer]

how deep? Is 1mm of water deep enough?

It was enough to take the breath of life away from every living thing on the land and destroy it.

Genesis 7 22-24; "All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days."

[Traveler]

It was enough to take the breath of life away from every living thing on the land and destroy it.

Genesis 7 22-24; "All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days."

This is important to understand what is happening as we interpret scriptures. For example if a person believes this as you have stated it – (and I will not criticize the notion) – just that if they do they need to be very careful what they say about evolution. If they say they do not believe evolution is possible to produce an new species then there is a real big problem with the Noah epoch in the scriptures because the ark was not big enough to hold all the known current species of worms – let alone everything else – especially in the insect kingdom.

My only point here is not to argue for any particular point – just that regardless of how one interprets the scriptures concerning the flood there is a chunk of stuff missing from the scriptures. Since it is missing we cannot assume it contradicts science – only that our understanding of scripture is on incomplete information. My assumption is that G-d has given us incomplete information in our day. Therefore I assume that the information we have has always been incomplete or something has happened to the unabridged version. Regardless of all the possibilities we are left wondering if and when we will know the “truth of all things”.

The Traveler

[rameumptom]

For me, the baptism argument that the world had to be "completely submersed" is a non sequitur. Paul taught that when Moses and Israel crossed through the Red Sea on dry land that it was a baptism for them - yet none of them got wet! Does a planet require baptism in the exact manner as we do? And if so, should it not have been submersed as we are, with priesthood involved, etc? Or are we going to have to go into symbolism to figure it all out?

I have many geologist friends, many in the Church, who will tell you that there is no evidence of a worldwide Flood occurring ~4500 years ago. We have evidence of older events, such as the global destructions 250M and 60M years ago, probably by asteroids (we can detect global levels of irridium dating to that period in the geological record). But there's no evidence of a global flood. Either it wasn't global, or God hid the evidence.

IMO, the ancient prophets saw a huge flood and believed that it was global. For most of them, the earth was flat and much smaller than we now know it to be.

The distribution of plants and animals would have been impossible by Noah and a handful of people. Some plants/animals are found on many continents, while others are found in just a few places. And some living plants are older than 4500 years.

1997; King's Holly (Lomatia tasmanica) - found in the rainforests of Tasmania. Scientists estimated the age of the plant using a nearby fossil of an identical plant. It was found to be over 43,000 years old! The plants appear to be sterile - incapable of producing flowers and viable seeds. Lomatia is triploid, that is, it has three sets of chromosomes instead of two. Because of this it is unable to sexually reproduce. The clonal thickets reproduce vegetatively by root suckering. Fossil leaves found in a late Pleistocene deposit may be genetically identical to present-day plants. The plant is a rare freak of nature whose origins and age are as yet unknown. August, 1999; Box Huckleberry (Gaylussacia brachycera) - researchers in Pennsylvania have discovered a living plant that is a remnant of the last Ice Age. Using the known rate of growth if this self-sterile plant, they estimated that this 1/4-acre colony is over 13,000 years old. Researchers are still trying to verify the growth rate to determine is that age is an accurate measure.

March, 2004; Eucalyptus recurva. Also known as "Mongarlowe Mallee" or "Ice Age Gum" it is the rarest Eucalypt in Australia or the world, and is known from only 5 individual specimens. Scientists in Australia are undertaking analyses to determine the exact age of one specimen that is estimated to be 13,000 years old. This aging method also relies on determining the plant's growth rate. Scientists are stilly verifying the growth and performing genetic analyses of neighboring specimens to determine if they are from the same organism.

April, 1980; Creosote bush (Larrea tridentata). Scientists discovered a giant, and very ancient clone of the creosote bush in the Mojave Desert in California they estimated to be between 11,000 and 12,000 years old.

With the thousands of animal species, not to mention the billions of insect species, it would be a virtual impossibility to redistribute them throughout the world within just a few thousand years, without impacting other environments along the way.

[Seminarysnoozer]

For me, the baptism argument that the world had to be "completely submersed" is a non sequitur. Paul taught that when Moses and Israel crossed through the Red Sea on dry land that it was a baptism for them - yet none of them got wet! Does a planet require baptism in the exact manner as we do? And if so, should it not have been submersed as we are, with priesthood involved, etc? Or are we going to have to go into symbolism to figure it all out?

I have many geologist friends, many in the Church, who will tell you that there is no evidence of a worldwide Flood occurring ~4500 years ago. We have evidence of older events, such as the global destructions 250M and 60M years ago, probably by asteroids (we can detect global levels of irridium dating to that period in the geological record). But there's no evidence of a global flood. Either it wasn't global, or God hid the evidence.

IMO, the ancient prophets saw a huge flood and believed that it was global. For most of them, the earth was flat and much smaller than we now know it to be.

The distribution of plants and animals would have been impossible by Noah and a handful of people. Some plants/animals are found on many continents, while others are found in just a few places. And some living plants are older than 4500 years.

With the thousands of animal species, not to mention the billions of insect species, it would be a virtual impossibility to redistribute them throughout the world within just a few thousand years, without impacting other environments along the way.

So what do you think about Genesis 7:22-24? Non-ark life did not die? or be destroyed as the scripture says?

"Impossible" doesn't have to be a reason to believe it didn't happen that way. Simply saying "I don't know how it happened" is fine too, don't you think?

Otherwise, how could one explain resurrection with science alone ... isn't that "virtually impossible" too? So, we'll have to throw that out too.

What if we find out in the next life that Noah was given a device that collected all the DNA codes for all the animals and he was able to suspend them in embryo and then angels delivered them to their various places throughout the world .... I'm not saying I believe that happened just simply saying we may not have all the science or all the information and therefore shouldn't say it is "impossible."

Edited June 22, 2010 by Seminarysnoozer

[LocalFarms]

For me, the baptism argument that the world had to be "completely submersed" is a non sequitur

I agree. In fact we know it wasn't complete submersion because Noah, his family, and animals were on the ark.

[Snow]

It was enough to take the breath of life away from every living thing on the land and destroy it.

Genesis 7 22-24; "All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days."

Do you have any evidence to support that - other than you believe it, I mean?

[Seminarysnoozer]

Do you have any evidence to support that - other than you believe it, I mean?

no (haha, It won't let me respond with less than 3 characters, so my answer can never simply be "no")

[Traveler]

...

IMO, the ancient prophets saw a huge flood and believed that it was global. For most of them, the earth was flat and much smaller than we now know it to be.

...

Most of you post I thought to be good but the flat earth thing was an invention of the Dark Ages. The ancient Prophets from which we have input starting with Abraham give indicatations that not only did they know the earth was round they had a good idea of how round it was. This is indicated mostly in the ancient calandars.

The Traveler

[Moksha]

Spherical Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

:)

[Snow]

no (haha, It won't let me respond with less than 3 characters, so my answer can never simply be "no")

Why do you believe something for which there is no evidence and there is, in fact, voluminous evidence against?

It's not like you have to believe it in order to go to heaven.

[rameumptom]

Most of you post I thought to be good but the flat earth thing was an invention of the Dark Ages. The ancient Prophets from which we have input starting with Abraham give indicatations that not only did they know the earth was round they had a good idea of how round it was. This is indicated mostly in the ancient calandars.

The Traveler

Sorry, but the Book of Abraham suggests a flat earth-centric belief. The moon is higher in orbit and closer to Kolob than the earth, according to the BoA. The Bible tells of the 4 corners of the earth, a clear statement that they believed the earth to be like a blanket, not a spherical object.

Yes, some ancients believed the earth to be round. But it was mostly the ancient scientists in Greece, etc., that had figured it out. That does not mean the average religious person understood this, particularly prior to the Flood. And the Bible is clearly flat earth.

See the following links for more info:

Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/flat/flateart.htm