Biogeography According to AiG
Comments on 'How did animals spread ...'
Much of the article builds on a Strawman arguments, which is not worth considering (If interested look below).
Besides that it suggests that marsupials (with few exceptions) went extinct everywhere else than in Australia. That is hardly an explanation unless we are told why this happened. And it certainly does not explain why there is no placental mammals in Australia (except for a few bats).
All monkeys in America have broad noses. All Asian and African monkeys have narrow noses - how come that they agreed on this odd distribution?
South America has several other groups of endemic species. Look here.
The Okapi is endemic to an African rainforest. Why are there no Okapis in Asia?
The Orangutan is endemic to south east Asia. The Gorilla and the Chimpanzee are endemic to Africa. Why dont they live together?
And so on and so on and on and on and ...
Straw-man argument presented in the article:
Much of the article is based on the undocumentes assumption that scientists accuse creationists of not being able to explain how animals got distributed over the world.
But the real argument is not how animals spread, but why we see such a clear pattern in the way they are distributed, as shortly outlined above.
This article runs in the same direction: Mysterious Madagascar (Link)
The article tries to promote 'mediated design' as an explanation to the variation in lemurs on Madagascar.
The mitochondrial genome of the Aye-Aye (Daubentonia madagascariensis) and the Ring-tailed Lemur (Lemur catta) is about 78 % identical. Creationist conclusion: Commen descent.
The mitochondrial genome of Chimps (Pan troglodytes) and Humans (Homo sapiens) is about 91 % identical. Creationist conclusion: Special creation.
There is no polite way to put this: It is utter nonsense.