googlef87758e9b6df9bec.html A Sure Word: They Weren't Polar Bears Before They Got There!

Monday, June 6, 2011

They Weren't Polar Bears Before They Got There!

A short while ago, I wrote a post about Koalas on the Ark so I apologize if I seem to be rehashing the same argument so soon. I was browsing Yahoo! Answers where I found a question that caused me to reflect on my last post so I'd like to take a minute to clarify a few things. A person calling himself Phorry None asked this: If all the animals came off of Noah's ark in the middle east, shouldn't we see all animal bones and fossils scattered all around that area and throughout the globe? Why are only certain animals found in certain places?

Phorry None didn't mention a particular species but he went on to speak generally about marsupials and “the millions of species found only in the Amazon.” Since he wasn't specific, I will supply my own example – and since I used bears in my last post, I'll use bears again only this time, I'll use the polar bear.

Now, bears existed before the Flood. However, polar bears didn't exist before the Flood. The polar bear (Ursus maritimus) is a modern species that has adapted to its post-diluvian environment. The ancestral bears that stepped off the Ark were necessarily more genetically diverse than any modern species of bear. Think of them as “mutt-bears.” Among dogs, mutts are more genetically diverse than any particular breed. Mutts can have a variety of traits among the pups of the same litter. A breed, like Irish Setters, will have pups that tend to all look alike. Likewise, the ancestral bears – the mutt-bears – could have had cubs with a variety of traits. As bears spread out among the world, bears that had traits suitable to an environment prospered in that environment; traits that weren't suitable to an environment were eliminated. This is a process known as natural selection.

In the arctic environment, white fur (actually it's clear fur) conveyed a survival advantage because it provided camouflage and allowed the bear to sneak up on prey. Larger bears were stronger and better able to pull seals out of the water. Bears with long necks and pointed faces could poke their heads into holes in ice more easily. All of these traits were selected for. Traits like dark fur, small bodies, short necks, flat faces, were selected against and so were eliminated. Thus, the polar bear species was born.

Further south, in the wooded areas of North America, white fur would be poor camouflage. Larger bears could not move as quickly through the woods plus they would need to eat more calories to support their larger bodies. It is in these areas the brown bears have the advantage. Thus, we do not find bears that look like polar bears in the lower 48.

Because species have adapted to their environment, I would not expect to find that same species in a different environment. To address Phorry None's point, why don't we find remains of some species – like polar bears – en route from the Middle East to the Arctic? It's because they weren't polar bears before they got there!


Hard2Understand said...

Hey, I remember this question, as I am a regular on Yahoo Answers. You completely missed the point about it, it seems. Obviously animals do adapt once they are in a certain place, as polar bears did as normal bears went north. However, this still doesn't account for the lack of fossils and skeletons that represent each animal genus. We should find evidence of kangaroos, koalas, alpacas, and pretty much every other type of animal in the middle east if they all got of the ark there.

RKBentley said...


Thanks for visiting my blog.

I'm sure I didn't misunderstand the question. Since I quoted the question in my post, you can see it for yourself. Phorry None did specifically say, “the millions of species found only in the Amazon” and did refer generally to marsupials (which does not fit in the category of a genus) as examples. He was asking why some species are found only in the Amazon and not en route from the Middle East to the Amazon.

As a creationist, I believe most fossils were created during the Flood. Flood fossils represent where the animals were deposited not necessarily where they lived. Fossilization after the Flood is a much rarer event. Post-diluvian fossils have accumulated slowly over the thousands of years since the Flood and would be more representative of where the creatures lived at various times. As a matter of fact, I would not expect to find ANY fossilized kinds which are immediate post-flood. If the “kangaroo-kind” animals drowned and were buried in mud as soon as they stepped off the Ark, there would be no descendants in Australia today!

BTW, marsupial fossils have been found on every continent – not just in Australia.

Thanks again for visiting. God bless!!