MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Why aren't there nasty creepy-crawlies in New Zealand? (Life Sciences)
Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Boreades


In: finity and beyond
View user's profile
Reply with quote

A few years ago, Les Famille Boreades was flush enough to go on a long holiday in Oz & NZ. We took our children round various parts of Oz that had various nasty life-threatening critters. Then we took them round NZ; that had none of that.

No surprise that our children thought the nasty stuff was wonderful, and that's where they wanted to be. Mrs Boreades and I had other ideas, perhaps influenced by the NZ grape-growing abilities. But that's another story.

My point is, given we are told that Australasia was, as recently as the last Ice Age, all one big continent, why aren't there any nasty critters in NZ?

I'll upload a supportive image of Australasia as soon as I find one.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Before you do that, some confirmation that anyone believes Australasia was recently all one continent would be welcome. It's news to me and as you know I'm a world authority in these matters.
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Boreades wrote:
ideas, perhaps influenced by the NZ grape

Says it all.

I too have had the occasional weird notion... after a heavy session.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

and that's where they wanted to be. Mrs Boreades and I had other ideas


Since in surveys New Zealand is regularly voted "most boring place on earth" and Australia "most interesting" I think that tells us all we need to know about Mr & Mrs Boreades. Though I had them down as Mormon teetotallers.
Send private message
Boreades


In: finity and beyond
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
and that's where they wanted to be. Mrs Boreades and I had other ideas


Since in surveys New Zealand is regularly voted "most boring place on earth" and Australia "most interesting" I think that tells us all we need to know about Mr & Mrs Boreades. Though I had them down as Mormon teetotallers.


All true, unless you like sailing. In which case, NZ is a world-leader in sailing technology, with some of the most wonderful sailing locations. NZ also has megaliths.

I am a complete teetotaller, from dawn to dusk.
Send private message
Boreades


In: finity and beyond
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
Before you do that, some confirmation that anyone believes Australasia was recently all one continent would be welcome..


Seems to depend what we mean by Australasia. There's the ancient geological meaning.

Sahul also called Sahul-land, Meganesia, Papualand and Greater Australia was a paleocontinent that encompassed the modern-day landmasses of mainland Australia, Tasmania, New Guinea, and the Aru Islands


[img]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahul#/media/
File:Map_of_Sunda_and_Sahul.svg[/img]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahul

Which gets confused or conflated with the modern geopolitical meaning.

[img]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australasia#/media/
File:Location_Australasia_cylindrical.png[/img]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australasia

Why does it include New Zealand?
Send private message
Boreades


In: finity and beyond
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Quoting the orthodox sources:

Zealandia
is an almost entirely submerged mass of continental crust in Oceania that subsided after breaking away from Gondwana 83–79 million years ago


A 2021 study suggests Zealandia is over a billion years old, about twice as old as geologists previously thought. By approximately 23 million years ago, the landmass may have been completely submerged. Today, most of the landmass (94%) remains submerged beneath the Pacific Ocean


Gondwana
was a large landmass, sometimes referred to as a supercontinent. The remnants of Gondwana make up around two-thirds of today's continental area, including South America, Africa, Antarctica, Australia, Zealandia, Arabia, and the Indian subcontinent.


But the orthodox narrative has such obvious holes in it, it's almost embarrassing.
e.g.
Regions that were part of Gondwana shared floral and faunal elements that persist to the present day.


So how come it's just Australia that has the marsupials?

I forget where on AEL I proposed that the reason Gondwana broke up was because our planet was originally smaller in diameter, but then got bigger.
Send private message
Boreades


In: finity and beyond
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Wiki tells me I'm wrong about the Marsupials

Marsupials are a diverse group of mammals belonging to the infraclass Marsupialia. They are natively found in Australasia, Wallacea, and the Americas.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsupial
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I forget where on AEL I proposed that the reason Gondwana broke up was because our planet was originally smaller in diameter, but then got bigger.

Gondwana is not acceptable to AE-ists because it is an entirely academic artefact. It has no reality in the physical world, no matter how long ago.

This has nothing to do with my own personal detestation of Continental Drift. It's just a fact. Somebody drew it on the back of an envelope in the nineteen-sixties (?) and everyone has been dutifully copying it ever since.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Page 1 of 1

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group