Animals' exacting needs could have evolved after the flood

From EvoWiki

Contents 1 Claim 2 Source 3 Responses 4 Fallacies contained in this claim 5 Related claims 6 Acknowledgments

Claim

The specialized dietary needs of many animals might have come about only after the Flood via microevolution. Microevolution could also account for climate preferences, lack of dormancy, wild temperament, and other traits, meaning that Noah never would have had to face many of the challenges that would be posed by animals in their present form.

Source

• Woodmorappe, John, 1996. Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, ICR, Santee, CA, pp. 61, 116-117, 125, 134.

Responses

1. The changes required to account for some of these changes (especially climate preference) would be well beyond what most creationists allow for "microevolution".
2. Increased codependence between organisms frequently requires increased information. Koalas specialize on Eucalyptus because they have special features to let them eat leaves most animals cannot, for example. This is increased genetic information, not available to generalist eaters. Creationists deny this is possible.
3. And now the creationists need to supply some transitional forms in the last 6000 years. Teeth are closely tied to diet and are well preserved, so where are their missing fossils?
4. It seems rather peculiar that creationists would allow for evolution to occur in order to lend strength to their own ideas, yet, officially deny that evolution actually occurs. In fact, to get from the alleged 15,754 original animals Woodmorappe claims were on the Ark to today's diversity in less than 4000 years would require hyperevolution of a rate fantastically greater than the rate of evolution that occured during the Cambrian Explosion, with new species appearing in every successive generation. Furthermore, these same Creationists will deny that the Cambrian Explosion occurred, claiming that it, itself, was too fast to have been possible.
5. The geological record directly contradicts this claim as it gives no evidence of a world-wide flood, nor a rapid "Evolutionary explosion" centered around Mount Ararat occuring after it.
6. add more responses

Fallacies contained in this claim

• Just So Story (Animals, uh, "evolved" their requirements after the Flood)
• Exclusion (Inconvenient truths are ignored)
• Golden Hammer (Facts need to be changed or ignored in order to make the story of the Ark true)
• add fallacies

Related claims

• Insects survived on floating vegetation mats
• All kinds could fit
• Juveniles of large animals were taken aboard
• Average land animal is the size of a sheep
• Animals hibernated on the Ark
• Crew could feed and care for animals
• Many animals don't require fresh or live food
• Pre-Flood animals lived in a uniform climate

Acknowledgments