WA it's not.

------------------
Here lies a toppled god,
His fall was not a small one.
We did but build his pedestal,
A narrow and a tall one.

-Tleilaxu Epigram

------------------
Death before Dishonor!
However Dishonor has
quite a disputed defintion.

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking"

And evolved into how we look today.

You don't seem to know that there's a difference between traits being shared among family groups and actual "evolution." It's called "microevolution", as opposed to "macroevolution". Look it up.

Isn't natural selection a Darwinian idea?

Yes. Darwin DID have some decent ideas. Different species arising through evolution just wasn't one of them, nor was it a logical outgrowth of them.

Just because members of a certain species that have a certain trait are more likely to survive in a certain environment doesn't mean that they're also more likely to become incapable of reproducing with other specimines, and thus forming a new species.

Tim:

"Natural selection", "evolution", "survival of the fittest"... They're all pretty much the same thing.

No, they're not. See above.

Rob:

Still, the space problem is there. Especially if you're bringing all the sauropods on board...

Unless, of course, you bring young, or even unhatched eggs. No need to feed them, eh?

There's also the question of exactly what would happen to all the species once they were in a completely enclosed environment, with no external time signatures. Have any experiments been done to that effect?

Nimrod:

I don't understand, dinos were already extinct by the time of the flood, weren't they?

Not necessarily. They could have been extinct, or they could have been brought as eggs, and later died out. Either way...

------------------
20th century, go to sleep.
--
R.E.M.
****
Read chapters one and two of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Show no patience, tolerance, or restraint.

"Just because members of a certain species that have a certain trait are more likely to survive in a certain environment doesn't mean that they're also more likely to become incapable of reproducing with other specimines, and thus forming a new species."

As many words as you used, this basically amounts to saying "You're wrong.". Well, my response to that is, "No, you're wrong.".

Besides, what makes you think you get to define "species". If the biologists classify horses and donkeys as different species, despite their ability to reproduce, who are you to refute it? They are the ones who decide the definition of "species" and, if they say two creatures who can procreate together are separate species, they're separate species. That's how it works.

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

Oh, and they were on the ark for more like a year, BTW.

Tim:

Besides, what makes you think you get to define "species".

Who says I need to? You want to use the definition from the screwed-up classification system, fine, but my definition is what is aplicable to the argument at hand. Noah wouldn't have needed to pick up every scientifically classified species on the planet. He would just have needed to pick up every legitimately different species on the planet. As I've shown, there is a great difference.

You want to show him his error, Rob?

"Oh, and they were on the ark for more like a year, BTW."

I hereby officially bestow upon Omega the distinguished title of "Smeghead".

------------------
I looked at my son, and said, "My god, he's hung like a bear."
"That's the umbillical cord, Mr. Williams."