A Deluge of Evidence for the Flood?

[LittlePig]

And I can't think of any reason you would make the comment you made if you weren't suggesting that the find favored your view of a worldwide flood.

Umm, because simply it's a better explanation? And the fact that it's more consistent with the Flood Model doesn't hurt either.

Except, of course, it isn't consistent with a 'Flood Model', since it isn't mixed in with any animals that we know are modern.

Before the rabbits multiply beyond control, I'll just leave my proposal as a rapid burial. Nothing more than that. For this thread, it can just be a giant mud slide.

Since it's still spring time, let's let the rabbits multiply.

Questions for Debate:

1) Does a Global Flood Model provide the best explanation for our current fossil record, geologic formations, and biodiversity?

2) What real science is used in Global Flood Models?

3) What predictions does a Global Flood Model make?

4) Have Global Flood Models ever been subjected to a formal peer review process?

[LiamOS]

It's not one versus another, it's science versus about ten people.
If you're unable to show that there is a big divide between those educated in such matters, you're clearly arguing from ignorance.

[TheMessenger]

Seeing as my original claim has only been denied and not dis-proven, an article is not necessary.

Done. Real trilobites, not a real foot print. From to:

The specimen does contain at least two real trilobites (which are abundant in the outcrops around Antelope Springs), but the supposed sandal print does not stand up to close scrutiny. The overall shape is seen to consist of a spall pattern in a concretion-like slab, similar to many others in the area. There is no evidence that it was ever part of a striding sequence, nor that it was ever on an exposed bedding plane, as real prints would be. The "print" is very shallow and shows no sign of pressure deformation or foot movement at its margin. However, on one side of the print, extending to the side of the supposed toe end is a rim or lip that is typical of similar concretions from the area, but which is incompatible in position and form to be a pressure ridge. Also, of the two halves of rock, the side that has the heel indented shows raised relief at the toe end, and vice versa, whereas in a real print one should show impression or raised relief throughout each half.

The supposed "heel" demarcation is actually a crack that runs beyond the boundary of the supposed print. It is best seen on the far left side as one views the print in the photograph herein. The slight relief difference at this point is due to slight movement along the crack line (Conrad, 1981 ; Stokes, 1986).

Similar concretionary shapes and spall patterns are abundant in the Wheeler formation, as are slabs showing concentric oval shapes of varying color, sometimes with stair-step like relief. Several other of these oblong features have also been interpreted as possible human prints (Cook, 1970), but are even less convincing than the Meister specimen (Conrad, 1981). None occur in striding trails or otherwise meet the scientific criteria by which genuine human prints are reliably identified. The geochemical processes such as solution penetrations, spalling, and weathering which form such features in fissile rocks of the Wheeler formation was discussed in considerable detail by Stokes (1986).

Several such "pseudo-prints" from Antelope Springs were sent to me in the early 1980's by creationist biologist Ernest Booth. One showed both an ovoid spall pattern similar to the Meister print, and another a color-distinct ovoid pattern without topographic relief. Booth expressed dismay that fellow creationists had not explained that such superficially print-like features were abundant at the site, and were products of geological phenomena and not real prints (Booth, 1982).

Some creationists have noted that the find was "confirmed" by "Dr. Cook." However, Dr. Cook was a metallurgist with little paleontological experience or knowledge. In his own report on the find Cook states, "...I am by no means an authority on fossils and footprints." He adds that the print seems to "speak for itself". However, upon careful inspection the evidence does not support Cook's conclusions.

In short, the trilobites in the specimen are real enough, but the "print" itself appears to be due solely to inorganic, geologic phenomena. After mainstream rebuttals of this find were published in the 1980's (Conrad, 1981; Stokes, 1986; Strahler, 1987), only a few creationists continued to suggest this was a real print, while most fromer advocates of the specimen have quietly abandoned the case.

Again, this proves nothing. Once again, one persons opinion versus another. One scientist says this while another says the opposite. Feel free to pick a side. I have.

this isnt opinion. This is the analysis of people who study this stuff and are experts in the field.

what you are doing here is essentially making your point of view totally unfalsifiable. There is literally zero evidence I could realistically provide that would convince you otherwise.

With that said, why do you even bother here? If you refuse to honestly listen or honestly engage with anyone else here, why do you continue wasting our time?

Honest? What an interesting word to chose. Why are your scientists superior to mine? Why are their studies superior to others. Because, you want them to be.

Here's one for you. At the top of one of the tallest mountains in Roanoke Virginia, I personally saw hundreds of the very same fossils. How did they get there? How did fossils of lifeforms that live in water get on top of a mountain.????

Just one more proof...........

[Scotracer]

Seeing as my original claim has only been denied and not dis-proven, an article is not necessary.

Done. Real trilobites, not a real foot print. From to:

The specimen does contain at least two real trilobites (which are abundant in the outcrops around Antelope Springs), but the supposed sandal print does not stand up to close scrutiny. The overall shape is seen to consist of a spall pattern in a concretion-like slab, similar to many others in the area. There is no evidence that it was ever part of a striding sequence, nor that it was ever on an exposed bedding plane, as real prints would be. The "print" is very shallow and shows no sign of pressure deformation or foot movement at its margin. However, on one side of the print, extending to the side of the supposed toe end is a rim or lip that is typical of similar concretions from the area, but which is incompatible in position and form to be a pressure ridge. Also, of the two halves of rock, the side that has the heel indented shows raised relief at the toe end, and vice versa, whereas in a real print one should show impression or raised relief throughout each half.

The supposed "heel" demarcation is actually a crack that runs beyond the boundary of the supposed print. It is best seen on the far left side as one views the print in the photograph herein. The slight relief difference at this point is due to slight movement along the crack line (Conrad, 1981 ; Stokes, 1986).

Similar concretionary shapes and spall patterns are abundant in the Wheeler formation, as are slabs showing concentric oval shapes of varying color, sometimes with stair-step like relief. Several other of these oblong features have also been interpreted as possible human prints (Cook, 1970), but are even less convincing than the Meister specimen (Conrad, 1981). None occur in striding trails or otherwise meet the scientific criteria by which genuine human prints are reliably identified. The geochemical processes such as solution penetrations, spalling, and weathering which form such features in fissile rocks of the Wheeler formation was discussed in considerable detail by Stokes (1986).

Several such "pseudo-prints" from Antelope Springs were sent to me in the early 1980's by creationist biologist Ernest Booth. One showed both an ovoid spall pattern similar to the Meister print, and another a color-distinct ovoid pattern without topographic relief. Booth expressed dismay that fellow creationists had not explained that such superficially print-like features were abundant at the site, and were products of geological phenomena and not real prints (Booth, 1982).

Some creationists have noted that the find was "confirmed" by "Dr. Cook." However, Dr. Cook was a metallurgist with little paleontological experience or knowledge. In his own report on the find Cook states, "...I am by no means an authority on fossils and footprints." He adds that the print seems to "speak for itself". However, upon careful inspection the evidence does not support Cook's conclusions.

In short, the trilobites in the specimen are real enough, but the "print" itself appears to be due solely to inorganic, geologic phenomena. After mainstream rebuttals of this find were published in the 1980's (Conrad, 1981; Stokes, 1986; Strahler, 1987), only a few creationists continued to suggest this was a real print, while most fromer advocates of the specimen have quietly abandoned the case.

Again, this proves nothing. Once again, one persons opinion versus another. One scientist says this while another says the opposite. Feel free to pick a side. I have.

this isnt opinion. This is the analysis of people who study this stuff and are experts in the field.

what you are doing here is essentially making your point of view totally unfalsifiable. There is literally zero evidence I could realistically provide that would convince you otherwise.

With that said, why do you even bother here? If you refuse to honestly listen or honestly engage with anyone else here, why do you continue wasting our time?

Honest? What an interesting word to chose. Why are your scientists superior to mine? Why are their studies superior to others. Because, you want them to be.

Here's one for you. At the top of one of the tallest mountains in Roanoke Virginia, I personally saw hundreds of the very same fossils. How did they get there? How did fossils of lifeforms that live in water get on top of a mountain.????

Just one more proof...........

Despite the fact there isn't enough water on planet earth (a CLOSED system) to produce a global flood?

Facts aren't opinions. Well, unless you want to invoke magic, I suppose...

[TheMessenger]

Seeing as my original claim has only been denied and not dis-proven, an article is not necessary.

Done. Real trilobites, not a real foot print. From to:

The specimen does contain at least two real trilobites (which are abundant in the outcrops around Antelope Springs), but the supposed sandal print does not stand up to close scrutiny. The overall shape is seen to consist of a spall pattern in a concretion-like slab, similar to many others in the area. There is no evidence that it was ever part of a striding sequence, nor that it was ever on an exposed bedding plane, as real prints would be. The "print" is very shallow and shows no sign of pressure deformation or foot movement at its margin. However, on one side of the print, extending to the side of the supposed toe end is a rim or lip that is typical of similar concretions from the area, but which is incompatible in position and form to be a pressure ridge. Also, of the two halves of rock, the side that has the heel indented shows raised relief at the toe end, and vice versa, whereas in a real print one should show impression or raised relief throughout each half.

The supposed "heel" demarcation is actually a crack that runs beyond the boundary of the supposed print. It is best seen on the far left side as one views the print in the photograph herein. The slight relief difference at this point is due to slight movement along the crack line (Conrad, 1981 ; Stokes, 1986).

Similar concretionary shapes and spall patterns are abundant in the Wheeler formation, as are slabs showing concentric oval shapes of varying color, sometimes with stair-step like relief. Several other of these oblong features have also been interpreted as possible human prints (Cook, 1970), but are even less convincing than the Meister specimen (Conrad, 1981). None occur in striding trails or otherwise meet the scientific criteria by which genuine human prints are reliably identified. The geochemical processes such as solution penetrations, spalling, and weathering which form such features in fissile rocks of the Wheeler formation was discussed in considerable detail by Stokes (1986).

Several such "pseudo-prints" from Antelope Springs were sent to me in the early 1980's by creationist biologist Ernest Booth. One showed both an ovoid spall pattern similar to the Meister print, and another a color-distinct ovoid pattern without topographic relief. Booth expressed dismay that fellow creationists had not explained that such superficially print-like features were abundant at the site, and were products of geological phenomena and not real prints (Booth, 1982).

Some creationists have noted that the find was "confirmed" by "Dr. Cook." However, Dr. Cook was a metallurgist with little paleontological experience or knowledge. In his own report on the find Cook states, "...I am by no means an authority on fossils and footprints." He adds that the print seems to "speak for itself". However, upon careful inspection the evidence does not support Cook's conclusions.

In short, the trilobites in the specimen are real enough, but the "print" itself appears to be due solely to inorganic, geologic phenomena. After mainstream rebuttals of this find were published in the 1980's (Conrad, 1981; Stokes, 1986; Strahler, 1987), only a few creationists continued to suggest this was a real print, while most fromer advocates of the specimen have quietly abandoned the case.

Again, this proves nothing. Once again, one persons opinion versus another. One scientist says this while another says the opposite. Feel free to pick a side. I have.

this isnt opinion. This is the analysis of people who study this stuff and are experts in the field.

what you are doing here is essentially making your point of view totally unfalsifiable. There is literally zero evidence I could realistically provide that would convince you otherwise.

With that said, why do you even bother here? If you refuse to honestly listen or honestly engage with anyone else here, why do you continue wasting our time?

Honest? What an interesting word to chose. Why are your scientists superior to mine? Why are their studies superior to others. Because, you want them to be.

Here's one for you. At the top of one of the tallest mountains in Roanoke Virginia, I personally saw hundreds of the very same fossils. How did they get there? How did fossils of lifeforms that live in water get on top of a mountain.????

Just one more proof...........

Despite the fact there isn't enough water on planet earth (a CLOSED system) to produce a global flood?

Facts aren't opinions. Well, unless you want to invoke magic, I suppose...

I'm sorry, is there an answer in there somewhere? How did they get there? Hundreds of them. How? How?

[Scotracer]

Seeing as my original claim has only been denied and not dis-proven, an article is not necessary.

Done. Real trilobites, not a real foot print. From to:

The specimen does contain at least two real trilobites (which are abundant in the outcrops around Antelope Springs), but the supposed sandal print does not stand up to close scrutiny. The overall shape is seen to consist of a spall pattern in a concretion-like slab, similar to many others in the area. There is no evidence that it was ever part of a striding sequence, nor that it was ever on an exposed bedding plane, as real prints would be. The "print" is very shallow and shows no sign of pressure deformation or foot movement at its margin. However, on one side of the print, extending to the side of the supposed toe end is a rim or lip that is typical of similar concretions from the area, but which is incompatible in position and form to be a pressure ridge. Also, of the two halves of rock, the side that has the heel indented shows raised relief at the toe end, and vice versa, whereas in a real print one should show impression or raised relief throughout each half.

The supposed "heel" demarcation is actually a crack that runs beyond the boundary of the supposed print. It is best seen on the far left side as one views the print in the photograph herein. The slight relief difference at this point is due to slight movement along the crack line (Conrad, 1981 ; Stokes, 1986).

Similar concretionary shapes and spall patterns are abundant in the Wheeler formation, as are slabs showing concentric oval shapes of varying color, sometimes with stair-step like relief. Several other of these oblong features have also been interpreted as possible human prints (Cook, 1970), but are even less convincing than the Meister specimen (Conrad, 1981). None occur in striding trails or otherwise meet the scientific criteria by which genuine human prints are reliably identified. The geochemical processes such as solution penetrations, spalling, and weathering which form such features in fissile rocks of the Wheeler formation was discussed in considerable detail by Stokes (1986).

Several such "pseudo-prints" from Antelope Springs were sent to me in the early 1980's by creationist biologist Ernest Booth. One showed both an ovoid spall pattern similar to the Meister print, and another a color-distinct ovoid pattern without topographic relief. Booth expressed dismay that fellow creationists had not explained that such superficially print-like features were abundant at the site, and were products of geological phenomena and not real prints (Booth, 1982).

Some creationists have noted that the find was "confirmed" by "Dr. Cook." However, Dr. Cook was a metallurgist with little paleontological experience or knowledge. In his own report on the find Cook states, "...I am by no means an authority on fossils and footprints." He adds that the print seems to "speak for itself". However, upon careful inspection the evidence does not support Cook's conclusions.

In short, the trilobites in the specimen are real enough, but the "print" itself appears to be due solely to inorganic, geologic phenomena. After mainstream rebuttals of this find were published in the 1980's (Conrad, 1981; Stokes, 1986; Strahler, 1987), only a few creationists continued to suggest this was a real print, while most fromer advocates of the specimen have quietly abandoned the case.

Again, this proves nothing. Once again, one persons opinion versus another. One scientist says this while another says the opposite. Feel free to pick a side. I have.

this isnt opinion. This is the analysis of people who study this stuff and are experts in the field.

what you are doing here is essentially making your point of view totally unfalsifiable. There is literally zero evidence I could realistically provide that would convince you otherwise.

With that said, why do you even bother here? If you refuse to honestly listen or honestly engage with anyone else here, why do you continue wasting our time?

Honest? What an interesting word to chose. Why are your scientists superior to mine? Why are their studies superior to others. Because, you want them to be.

Here's one for you. At the top of one of the tallest mountains in Roanoke Virginia, I personally saw hundreds of the very same fossils. How did they get there? How did fossils of lifeforms that live in water get on top of a mountain.????

Just one more proof...........

Despite the fact there isn't enough water on planet earth (a CLOSED system) to produce a global flood?

Facts aren't opinions. Well, unless you want to invoke magic, I suppose...

I'm sorry, is there an answer in there somewhere? How did they get there? Hundreds of them. How? How?

Scientists don't bother with anecdotes. Please present your findings and the lab reports that go with them.

[TheMessenger]

Seeing as my original claim has only been denied and not dis-proven, an article is not necessary.

Done. Real trilobites, not a real foot print. From to:

The specimen does contain at least two real trilobites (which are abundant in the outcrops around Antelope Springs), but the supposed sandal print does not stand up to close scrutiny. The overall shape is seen to consist of a spall pattern in a concretion-like slab, similar to many others in the area. There is no evidence that it was ever part of a striding sequence, nor that it was ever on an exposed bedding plane, as real prints would be. The "print" is very shallow and shows no sign of pressure deformation or foot movement at its margin. However, on one side of the print, extending to the side of the supposed toe end is a rim or lip that is typical of similar concretions from the area, but which is incompatible in position and form to be a pressure ridge. Also, of the two halves of rock, the side that has the heel indented shows raised relief at the toe end, and vice versa, whereas in a real print one should show impression or raised relief throughout each half.

The supposed "heel" demarcation is actually a crack that runs beyond the boundary of the supposed print. It is best seen on the far left side as one views the print in the photograph herein. The slight relief difference at this point is due to slight movement along the crack line (Conrad, 1981 ; Stokes, 1986).

Similar concretionary shapes and spall patterns are abundant in the Wheeler formation, as are slabs showing concentric oval shapes of varying color, sometimes with stair-step like relief. Several other of these oblong features have also been interpreted as possible human prints (Cook, 1970), but are even less convincing than the Meister specimen (Conrad, 1981). None occur in striding trails or otherwise meet the scientific criteria by which genuine human prints are reliably identified. The geochemical processes such as solution penetrations, spalling, and weathering which form such features in fissile rocks of the Wheeler formation was discussed in considerable detail by Stokes (1986).

Several such "pseudo-prints" from Antelope Springs were sent to me in the early 1980's by creationist biologist Ernest Booth. One showed both an ovoid spall pattern similar to the Meister print, and another a color-distinct ovoid pattern without topographic relief. Booth expressed dismay that fellow creationists had not explained that such superficially print-like features were abundant at the site, and were products of geological phenomena and not real prints (Booth, 1982).

Some creationists have noted that the find was "confirmed" by "Dr. Cook." However, Dr. Cook was a metallurgist with little paleontological experience or knowledge. In his own report on the find Cook states, "...I am by no means an authority on fossils and footprints." He adds that the print seems to "speak for itself". However, upon careful inspection the evidence does not support Cook's conclusions.

In short, the trilobites in the specimen are real enough, but the "print" itself appears to be due solely to inorganic, geologic phenomena. After mainstream rebuttals of this find were published in the 1980's (Conrad, 1981; Stokes, 1986; Strahler, 1987), only a few creationists continued to suggest this was a real print, while most fromer advocates of the specimen have quietly abandoned the case.

Again, this proves nothing. Once again, one persons opinion versus another. One scientist says this while another says the opposite. Feel free to pick a side. I have.

this isnt opinion. This is the analysis of people who study this stuff and are experts in the field.

what you are doing here is essentially making your point of view totally unfalsifiable. There is literally zero evidence I could realistically provide that would convince you otherwise.

With that said, why do you even bother here? If you refuse to honestly listen or honestly engage with anyone else here, why do you continue wasting our time?

Honest? What an interesting word to chose. Why are your scientists superior to mine? Why are their studies superior to others. Because, you want them to be.

Here's one for you. At the top of one of the tallest mountains in Roanoke Virginia, I personally saw hundreds of the very same fossils. How did they get there? How did fossils of lifeforms that live in water get on top of a mountain.????

Just one more proof...........

Despite the fact there isn't enough water on planet earth (a CLOSED system) to produce a global flood?

Facts aren't opinions. Well, unless you want to invoke magic, I suppose...

I'm sorry, is there an answer in there somewhere? How did they get there? Hundreds of them. How? How?

Scientists don't bother with anecdotes. Please present your findings and the lab reports that go with them.

Therein is the problem. Nobody looks anymore. They read what he said he said he said. What say you just drive or fly out to Roanoke Va and see them for yourself?

[TheMessenger]

Seeing as my original claim has only been denied and not dis-proven, an article is not necessary.

Done. Real trilobites, not a real foot print. From to:

The specimen does contain at least two real trilobites (which are abundant in the outcrops around Antelope Springs), but the supposed sandal print does not stand up to close scrutiny. The overall shape is seen to consist of a spall pattern in a concretion-like slab, similar to many others in the area. There is no evidence that it was ever part of a striding sequence, nor that it was ever on an exposed bedding plane, as real prints would be. The "print" is very shallow and shows no sign of pressure deformation or foot movement at its margin. However, on one side of the print, extending to the side of the supposed toe end is a rim or lip that is typical of similar concretions from the area, but which is incompatible in position and form to be a pressure ridge. Also, of the two halves of rock, the side that has the heel indented shows raised relief at the toe end, and vice versa, whereas in a real print one should show impression or raised relief throughout each half.

The supposed "heel" demarcation is actually a crack that runs beyond the boundary of the supposed print. It is best seen on the far left side as one views the print in the photograph herein. The slight relief difference at this point is due to slight movement along the crack line (Conrad, 1981 ; Stokes, 1986).

Similar concretionary shapes and spall patterns are abundant in the Wheeler formation, as are slabs showing concentric oval shapes of varying color, sometimes with stair-step like relief. Several other of these oblong features have also been interpreted as possible human prints (Cook, 1970), but are even less convincing than the Meister specimen (Conrad, 1981). None occur in striding trails or otherwise meet the scientific criteria by which genuine human prints are reliably identified. The geochemical processes such as solution penetrations, spalling, and weathering which form such features in fissile rocks of the Wheeler formation was discussed in considerable detail by Stokes (1986).

Several such "pseudo-prints" from Antelope Springs were sent to me in the early 1980's by creationist biologist Ernest Booth. One showed both an ovoid spall pattern similar to the Meister print, and another a color-distinct ovoid pattern without topographic relief. Booth expressed dismay that fellow creationists had not explained that such superficially print-like features were abundant at the site, and were products of geological phenomena and not real prints (Booth, 1982).

Some creationists have noted that the find was "confirmed" by "Dr. Cook." However, Dr. Cook was a metallurgist with little paleontological experience or knowledge. In his own report on the find Cook states, "...I am by no means an authority on fossils and footprints." He adds that the print seems to "speak for itself". However, upon careful inspection the evidence does not support Cook's conclusions.

In short, the trilobites in the specimen are real enough, but the "print" itself appears to be due solely to inorganic, geologic phenomena. After mainstream rebuttals of this find were published in the 1980's (Conrad, 1981; Stokes, 1986; Strahler, 1987), only a few creationists continued to suggest this was a real print, while most fromer advocates of the specimen have quietly abandoned the case.

Again, this proves nothing. Once again, one persons opinion versus another. One scientist says this while another says the opposite. Feel free to pick a side. I have.

this isnt opinion. This is the analysis of people who study this stuff and are experts in the field.

what you are doing here is essentially making your point of view totally unfalsifiable. There is literally zero evidence I could realistically provide that would convince you otherwise.

With that said, why do you even bother here? If you refuse to honestly listen or honestly engage with anyone else here, why do you continue wasting our time?

Honest? What an interesting word to chose. Why are your scientists superior to mine? Why are their studies superior to others. Because, you want them to be.

Here's one for you. At the top of one of the tallest mountains in Roanoke Virginia, I personally saw hundreds of the very same fossils. How did they get there? How did fossils of lifeforms that live in water get on top of a mountain.????

Just one more proof...........

Despite the fact there isn't enough water on planet earth (a CLOSED system) to produce a global flood?

Facts aren't opinions. Well, unless you want to invoke magic, I suppose...

I'm sorry, is there an answer in there somewhere? How did they get there? Hundreds of them. How? How?

Scientists don't bother with anecdotes. Please present your findings and the lab reports that go with them.

Oh speaking of lab reports, are you aware that science has discovered that your brain is not fully developed until your 25? It would appear you have a couple years to go. osteng that is valid science but do what you must.

[LiamOS]

One's brain may not finish developing until one is about 25, but clearly some brains are far superior long before such a point. *cough*

[TheMessenger]

One's brain may not finish developing until one is about 25, but clearly some brains are far superior long before such a point. *cough*

That is possible but how would you know? If indeed the brain is still developing, you couldn't be sure of your true genius until you reached 25.

[WinePusher]

Does a Global Flood Model provide the best explanation for our current fossil record, geologic formations, and biodiversity?

Almost everything about the fossil record seems to dispute the validity of gradualism. So yes, a flood of a global scale coupled with the theory of catastrophism seems to be a more potent explanation for the fossil record:

Catastrophic events better explain extinctions and the disappearance of transitional species from the fossil record. What are the causes of extinctions if not enviromental factors? And, of course, after natural catastrophes you have primary succession come into play and the inception of new pioneer species which would account for dissimilar species. The process of fossilization also gives support to a massive scale flood, as many rocks and fossils are formed as a result of sedimentation and thus give evidence as to how much influence ephemeral catastrophic natural forces had. And the fact that the fossil mound called the Burgess Shale has indeed preserved soft body parts of animals only compounds additional mysteries onto the question why we have little to no precambrian fossils.

Geologic formation, as I know it, is governed by superposition and faunal succession which inherently assume some sort of " geological timeline." Thanks to TheMessenger for doing my homework for me, and producing a fossil that does in fact upset these two geological principles.

I don't see how a Global Flood would better account for biodiversity, however it may provide adequate explanation for geographic distribution. I am unsure as to whether the FM makes such predictions and will forego any defense of such ideas at the moment. As for how biodiversity can be explained, I think we run into problems with evolutionary theory:

1) Not all mutations are beneficial, in fact some are very harmful, and the determinant seems to be random.
2) Diversity is dependent on genetic variation, and genetic drift essentially predicts that genetic variation decreases overtime.