God did not create species in their present locations. The kinds dispersed when the Ark landed, and then they diversified. Due to the curse on creation, we would expect animals to be getting worse on average, and so it is no surprise that introduced species often out-perform native ones.
On the other hand, this argument could actually be turned around against evolution. If introduced species outperform native species, then why are species evolving better for a foreign environment than animals which are native to that environment? Evolutionists have scenarios to explain this, but the point is that the argument could go either way.
Site Under Construction
This site is still under construction. It needs more references, citations, and debate arguments. If you would like to help, please view the community page.
Coyne, J. A. (2009). Why Evolution Is True. New York: Viking.
- Coyne, 2009, p. 92: “In other words, mammals, amphibians, freshwater fish, and reptiles often do very well when humans introduce them to oceanic islands. In fact, they often take over, wiping out native species.” ↩