To about the same extent that I can prove toys won't spring to life when I look away, yes.
Absence of a barrier doesn't necessarily lead to homogenization or diffusion.
Based on what exactly? A puerile desire for physics to be suspended merely so that a cherished story of yours may be true?
Ever heard of entropy? Things slow down. Apparently even
light.
So what exactly is your argument here? That you believe that the continents moved 1,410,747,444 times faster than has ever been observed or we have any reason to believe they moved, because? What? Your obviously fictional story requires it.
That you think this is indicative not of the narrative's verisimilitude, but of the actual speed of continents I think is quite telling of the extent to which you are willing to deceive yourself to believe in a story. It's truly astonishing.
When I said, "see above," I meant in that very same post; e.g. the response directly above it.
And how does 35 sub-species (breeds) of a single species arising in 200 years with human assistance, in any way prove that 2,000
actual species can arise in 4,000 without any human assistance, at a rate of 1 species every 2 years for 4,000 consecutive years without a single extinction?
How does it exacerbate them?
Because the rate of speciation you must posit requires that the speciation rate barely outpaces standard population growth. Speciation requires large populations, lots of time, and lots of extinction which are precisely the factors that your narrative lacks. That's not even mentioning the problems introduced by massive inter-breeding.
So the smaller the number on the ark, the more implausible the speciation would have been post-deluge to explain modern biodiversity. Conversely the larger the number on the ark, the more implausible the ability of the ark to contain them all (and have them all survive) becomes.
