How Did Noah Care For The Koala, With Its Specialized Diet Of Fresh Eucalyptus Leaves, On The Ark?


Why not take the question a step farther and ask how thousands of distinct species managed to fit on Noah’s Ark? You’d like to know the answer, wouldn’t you? Think about it. There are over 250 different species of primate alone. There are three species of elephant still roaming the continents of Asia and Africa; and two that we know of that went extinct within the last thousand years. There are 36 different feline species, and 34 canines. This includes lions, tigers, wolves and several other large predators. Do you think Noah had special stalls to house polar bears, brown bears (Such as Grizzlies and Kodiaks), giant pandas, sun bears, sloth bears, spectacled bears, and two kinds of black bears? It would be impossible for even the largest modern ocean vessel to house two of every animal species on the planet. So how did Noah do it? The fact is, the theistic answer is the same as the atheistic answer; he didn’t. There were no polar bears, no African forest elephants, and no Koalas on Noah’s Ark. So have you reached the point where you’re asking: “what the heck is this guy talking about” yet? If so, that’s good; it shows you’re interested.

God created each species that creepeth upon the earth with an ability to adapt to its environment, according to its kind. Darwin called this mechanism of adaptation, evolution. Have you ever wondered why most theologians fail to adequately answer the Koala question? For lack of a better answer, they always seem to rely on the old “God can do anything,” escape clause. But is that what God asks us to do, just accept what people tell us, in spite of their inability to find the answer? If one truly listens to God’s voice, he/she can answer any relevant question. This does not mean he/she can solve intricate physics equations, or direct you to the hidden location of the Ark of the Covenant, but it does mean he can explain the answers to questions like this one. The answer is simple, it’s because the solution to the question has been used by atheists and evolutionists as a counter argument to creationism for nearly two hundred years. In fact, I used the evolution argument myself, many times, during my agnostic years. And because I have argued both sides of this debate, I was able to see the common ground that creation and evolution share when God revealed it to me. Again, all life adapts to its environment. If we didn’t, the earth would be lifeless. This planet has gone through some extreme and abrupt changes since its creation; green house effects followed by ice ages, tectonic expansion, asteroid strikes and massive volcanic eruptions, just to mention a few. If God had not created the mechanism of adaptation, we would not have survived even one of those changes.

Noah did not need to take two hundred and fifty species of primate. Nor did he have to take eight different kinds of bear, or five separate elephant species. All Noah would have to make room for on the ark would be the progenitor of each species, or the member of each family with the purest DNA. Evolution would take care of the rest. As I said before, if evolution (or adaptation) didn’t exist, life would not have survived the first earth change, let alone, each one that followed. A process of evolution known as Sympatric Speciation has yielded some compelling data.

We have seen incredibly diverse changes in fruit eating insect populations who share the same habitats. Though they descend from the same progenitor, and share the same geography, they have separated into several distinctly different species. This is due to Sympatric Speciation. One of the most dramatic studies of Sympatric Speciation was done by Dr. Dolph Schluter on a fresh water fish, known as the three-spined stickleback. Two different species of three-spined sticklebacks were discovered in five different lakes. The larger benthic species, with a large mouth, which feeds in the littoral zone on large prey, and the smaller limnetic species, with a smaller mouth, which feeds in open water on plankton. According to DNA analysis, the lake was apparently colonized independently by a marine ancestor, following the previous ice age. Subsequent DNA analysis concludes that specimens from the same lake are more closely related than those from other locations. However, due to generations of speciation, the two species in each lake are reproductively isolated; they do not mate with one another. Yet the limnetic species from the different lakes will spawn with each other, and the benthic species will do the same.

Speciation is quite selective at times, as evidenced by the White Arctic Hare, which adapted to the frozen Canadian tundra. Natural selection eliminated the hare’s darker furred cousins, who fell prey to arctic predators. Only the white hare survived, because of its ability to blend in to the snowy environment. Separated by terrain, food sources or climate, a hare could, in fact, become incompatible with another hare living under different conditions; even though they had the same ancestor. This can happen in a relatively short period of time, just a few thousand years, or, in some cases, a few generations. But, in spite of the fact that Dr. Schluter’s study did prove that one species can become two, through Sympatric Speciation, one thing should be pointed out. According to the Out Of Africa hypothesis, developed through the research of doctors Rebecca Cann, Mark Stoneking, and Allan Wilson, in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, homo-sapiens, are one hundred to two hundred thousand years old. Yet the Eskimo from the coldest regions of the world, whose diet consists primarily of fat, is still compatible with equatorial peoples, living in the hottest climates on earth, on diets consisting of proteins and carbohydrates. Man still remains one species, in spite of diet, climate, or planetary location. That scientific fact is religion’s ally, not its enemy.

A DNA study done in the late 1980’s yielded data that led to the Mitochondrial Eve theory; or the “Out Of Africa” hypothesis. The study determined that all modern humans can be traced along maternal lines of descent to a woman who lived about 200,000 years ago, probably in Africa, dubbed “Mitochondrial Eve.” However, a growing number of studies have shown that paternal mtDNA can also be inherited. This belief is central to mtDNA genealogical DNA testing, and to the mitochondrial Eve theory. Evidence has been presented which shows that, in sexual reproduction, the tail of the sperm enters the egg, and thus paternal leakage does occur. Regardless of these results, another study, using Y chromosome sequencing traced the origin of human males to a one hundred and fifty thousand year old, Y chromosome “Adam.” So either way, we find an interesting pattern emerging at the root of Homo-Sapiens family tree.

Based on the evolutionary model; tracing both male and female to one hominid source in one planetary location requires some adjustments to the paradigm. Since Darwin claimed that all life originated in the waters of the primordial soup, evolution should have been marching across the globe, not limiting itself to one small area. Therefore, since hominid species were evolving independently all across the planet, we would likely have evolved from many sources instead of one. To explain the Out Of Africa results, evolutionists have been scrambling to adequately illustrate how an entire race could trace its DNA lineage to one woman and one man. The result of the scrambling? There were other men and women along with “Adam & Eve” on the earth at that time, but only one bloodline survived. Of course! That must be it! Silly me, for finding it illogical to assume that only one bloodline from one individual would survive over all those “other people” sharing the evolutionary stage. I can understand how bloodlines intermingle; however, I do not understand how one of those bloodlines could completely erase the rest as they began to mix. Does that seem logical to you? Another anomaly that should be pointed out involves the Mitochondrial Eve results. Keeping in mind that paternal leakage does occur in the passing of mtDNA, why were doctors Cann, Stoneking, and Wilson only able to trace the human race back to Mitochondrial Eve? Why did they not see Adam as well? Why was Y chromosome sequencing necessary to trace the male DNA line? Shouldn’t we be able to trace Adam through the same process we used to trace Eve? Then again, if Eve was created from Adam’s rib, as the Bible claims, wouldn’t they share identical DNA? If so, would they appear, through mtDNA sequencing, as two different people, or one individual person? You decide.

The migration of early Homo-Sapiens into the eastern and western parts of Europe, around 40,000 years ago, is said to have led to the eventual replacement of Neanderthals by modern humans, eventually causing Neanderthal extinction about 28,000 years ago. In July of 1997 the first EVER Neanderthal DNA sequencing was completed, on DNA samples extracted from a Neanderthal fossil discovered in the Feldhofer Cave in Germany. It was a breakthrough in the study of human evolution. The results of the Feldhofer Neanderthal study were announced in the Journal, Cell (Krings, et. al., 1997). DNA was extracted and the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequence was determined. Comparing the sequence to living human mtDNA, the sample was found to be outside the range of modern human variation. Estimation of Neanderthal’s age, compared to human divergence, shows the species to be four times older than the mtDNA of modern human ancestors. Results concluded that Neanderthals went extinct without contributing to the present mtDNA of modern humans. On March 28, 2000, Russian scientists extracted a second mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sample from the remains of a Neanderthal infant, discovered in a Mezmaiskaya Cave in Russia’s northern Caucasus. Radiocarbon dating determined the specimen to be around 29,000 years old, and therefore from a pre-extinction Neanderthal. The sequence reveals a 3.48% divergence from the Feldhofer Neanderthal. Phylogenetic analysis places the two Neanderthals, from the Caucasus and western Germany in a clade (A group of organisms, such as a species, whose members share homologous features derived from a common ancestor) completely distinct from modern humans, leading researchers to conclude that Neanderthal mtDNA did not contributed to the modern human mtDNA pool. A comparison study with modern populations provided no evidence supporting the multiregional hypothesis of modern human evolution.

There is no reason for theists to reject evolution, for what can be proven. However, atheistic evolutionists continue to embellish the science with the philosophy of evolution. Evolution does happen. Did protozoa evolve into palm trees, timber wolves, elephants and humans? Well, that’s where opinion and speculation take us into the philosophical areas of evolution. The debate continues to rage. Meanwhile, God watches as theism and atheism fuel our obsessions. Personally, it does not affect me in the least, if your beliefs do not complement mine. You have that right to choose your own path. You are not an instinctual animal, but a discerning “being.” Animals act on instinct, never making the distinction that an action may be right or wrong. You, on the other hand, can discern between the good and evil aspects of a choice. Without that ability, we would still be in the jungles and the caves; and the process of speciation would have separated us long ago. I urge you to question what you do not understand; but if your questions are answered, regardless of whether the answer fits your present paradigm, do not close your mind or harden your heart simply because you’re too proud to admit when you’re wrong. If you are compelled to scoff, but offer no rebuttal, will you hold on to a paradigm that provides nothing more than empty mockery when faced with an argument that challenges your beliefs? A wise person hears, and considers, everything, while the fool hears only what he wants to hear, and considers nothing.