|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1695 days) Posts: 53 From: Reno, Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Wombat Pouch | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9196 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
I insist marsupials are just placentals who in some areas farthest from the Ark adapted a more productive reproductive system. This is going to be my standard response to fundy nonsense. Your beliefs have no effect on reality and evidently reality has no effect on your beliefs. Instead of "insisting" how about some evidence or a reasonable argument to defend your beliefs other than "godidit".
It is unlikely or impossible for the original marsupial from whence came all sorts of marsupials to switch pouches back to front as needed from selection on mutation.
Can you support this assertion? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13029 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Hi Robert,
As in your messages in other threads, this is just a collection of unsupported assertions. Your inability or unwillingness to support them will gradually turn this thread from discussion of the topic into cajoling you to support them and/or mockery of you, which we're not going to do again. Please post no messages to this thread that ignore any requests that you support what you claim. Any and all viewpoints are welcome at EvC Forum, but stating your position is the beginning, not the end. Those who can do nothing more than state and restate their position over and over again while making up more and more should find something else to do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
So it i sperfectly reasonable that a placental mammal 'adapted' by doing away with the placenta and developing a pouch ... but it is NOT reasonable that the position of the pouch openeing changed?
Does that sound reasonable to you? Which of those changes (biologically) seems the most radical? Or did you mean that god just changed them after the flood?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
granpa Member (Idle past 2366 days) Posts: 128 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4393 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Theodoric writes: I insist marsupials are just placentals who in some areas farthest from the Ark adapted a more productive reproductive system. This is going to be my standard response to fundy nonsense. Your beliefs have no effect on reality and evidently reality has no effect on your beliefs. Instead of "insisting" how about some evidence or a reasonable argument to defend your beliefs other than "godidit".
It is unlikely or impossible for the original marsupial from whence came all sorts of marsupials to switch pouches back to front as needed from selection on mutation.
Can you support this assertion? Its impossible because going front to back requires quite a mechanism.To have the important change by evolution would require the changes in between a-b as being good enough for a while until selection went further. Its unlikely and impossible surely. Rather its the reasonable conclusion that upon a general change of creatures upon entering some areas or just because of the journey that reproduction was increased by limiting the duration of the fetus in the womb. it crawls out earlier and needs to suckle in a safe place. A few marsupials only have them hang on and a few just have a pouch or opening for pregnancy. Then the rest have a fixed pouch because of size. so it follows the pouch was first just a layer of skin being pushed about and this for some very quickly got completly folded over and a part of the dna. It is difficult to see these things happening suddenly however its easier then any claim of evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4393 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Peter writes:
Perfectly reasonable. So it i sperfectly reasonable that a placental mammal 'adapted' by doing away with the placenta and developing a pouch ... but it is NOT reasonable that the position of the pouch openeing changed? Does that sound reasonable to you? Which of those changes (biologically) seems the most radical? Or did you mean that god just changed them after the flood?Not doing away with anything as much as speeding things up. Marsupialism is all about speeded up processes. Thus suggesting the original need. Moving a pouch front to back by selection on mutation just when needed is not only unlikely it makes evolution to have a goal. Halfway around would have to be fine for a while before the step. What would this look like and why not continue? The pouch on the opposite side suggests clearly the pouch is not from time acting with selection but is related to the particular creature quickly as it were making a fold in its skin. then this becomes a part of the dna. Nothing was seen but a creationist idea easily trumps a evolutionist one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
What would this look like and why not continue? It would look like the picture I posted above showing exactly that, do you ever read these threads before you post Robert or does seeing anything marsupial related just trigger a natural instinct to post the first thing that comes into your head, which naturally happens to be your usual ide fixe? As for why not a central pouch wouldn't necessarily persist? Because certain configurations favoured increased reproductive success for specific ecological niches. So if a backward facing pouch tends to improve the survival of young in burrowing animals then that would be a factor leading to differential reproductive success of those animals with such a pouch and tending to increase the prevalence of backward facing pouches if the trait was heritable and potentially of favouring over time more backward facing pouches.
Nothing was seen but a creationist idea easily trumps a evolutionist one. You haven't really articulated a coherent creationist idea. Saying that a fold of skin 'becomes part of the DNA' is biologically meaningless. Are you thinking of something along the lines of Waddington's 'Genetic Assimilation'? TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
But ... biologically speaking which is a more radical change:
1) Slight differences in the positioning of an opening into a pouch OR 2) The complete removal of a complex life support system. I would really like to know your answer to the above conumndrum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Peter writes: But ... biologically speaking which is a more radical change: The scientific answer is fairly obvious, but let's pretend that your answer to the question determines where you are going to spend eternity? Which then is more radical? For Mr. Byers, better an explanation having no support at all, than one that involves evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4393 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Wounded King writes: What would this look like and why not continue? It would look like the picture I posted above showing exactly that, do you ever read these threads before you post Robert or does seeing anything marsupial related just trigger a natural instinct to post the first thing that comes into your head, which naturally happens to be your usual ide fixe? As for why not a central pouch wouldn't necessarily persist? Because certain configurations favoured increased reproductive success for specific ecological niches. So if a backward facing pouch tends to improve the survival of young in burrowing animals then that would be a factor leading to differential reproductive success of those animals with such a pouch and tending to increase the prevalence of backward facing pouches if the trait was heritable and potentially of favouring over time more backward facing pouches.
Nothing was seen but a creationist idea easily trumps a evolutionist one. You haven't really articulated a coherent creationist idea. Saying that a fold of skin 'becomes part of the DNA' is biologically meaningless. Are you thinking of something along the lines of Waddington's 'Genetic Assimilation'? TTFN, WK Nothing was witnessed and so my fold of skin is a good option for what is more likely. You still are trying to make a movie of each stage of a moving pouch being greatly fine with generations of the creature.You have it spinning it around and then presto it finds its right place as it is now. If its spinning then why not speculate its gone around the block several times? how would you know? You can always say its moving but theres no evidence of this. The only evidence is what is now found. All pouches fit just fine, save a few cases of being non existent or seasonal, and it makes a reasonable conclusion they are merely folds in the skin that were pased on to off spring. This all starting from a need to store the fetus so as to get another one growing in the womb for creatures in a rush to repopulate the earth with the farthest areas showing this most. marsupialism is simply about reproduction. the change is exactly why there was a change in creatures otherwise spot on identical to others on earth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.4 |
As usual when answering your posts I find myself wondering whether you can actually read. Also, will you please start a thread on your marsupial ideas so we can discuss them properly?
Robert Byers writes: Nothing was witnessed and so my fold of skin is a good option for what is more likely. This is simply not true. If I don't witness a car crash that doesn't suddenly make it being caused by a giant picking up the two cars and slamming them together suddenly likely. We don't need to directly witness things to understand what is likely, or unlikely, to occur.
You have it spinning it around and then presto it finds its right place as it is now. Except, as every evolutionist in this thread has said, we don't think there was any spinning at all. How is it that you've managed to post in this thread without understanding that?
You can always say its moving but theres no evidence of this. The only evidence is what is now found. And that evidence clearly shows that organisms that share a common ancestor have differences in the shape, size and positioning of opening of their pouch.
marsupialism is simply about reproduction. the change is exactly why there was a change in creatures otherwise spot on identical to others on earth. This is still as untrue as every other time you've asserted it. Will you please start a thread where we can discuss it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13029 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Hi Robert,
Your approach in thread after thread has been to invent reasons for ignoring evidence, for example, inventing new definitions of geology and biology. Here today we see this new reason for ignoring evidence:
Robert Byers writes: Nothing was witnessed and so my fold of skin is a good option for what is more likely. Even you don't believe that the criteria for evidence should be that it have a direct eyewitness. I'm quite sure that when you check the mileage on your car before loaning it out to one of your kids for a short trip that when it comes back with hundreds of additional miles you'll conclude they didn't just go to the library, and you won't feel that you have to have actually witnessed them doing it. If you would like to discuss the proposition that all evidence of events must have a direct eyewitness then please submit a thread proposal over at Proposed New Topics, but leave such ideas out of other threads. Edited by Admin, : Typo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
misha Member (Idle past 4653 days) Posts: 69 From: Atlanta Joined: |
I'm not learned on the anatomy of marsupials. However, the first thing I thought of was: Why is upward or downward assumed to be the original orientation? My initial suspicion is that inward was the original orientation, similarly to a uterus. Rather than the opening of the pouch moving I would suspect that the base of the pouch moved from the inward apex to downward for the kangaroo and upward for the wombat. This would give us the current illusion of a downward opening when in fact it was the pouch itself that moved, not the opening.
With this series of events, small incremental changes from the inward pouch apex would have been beneficial for both the wombat and the kangaroo in their respective directions. I guess its a bit hard to explain without diagrams.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Although they might have left the keys in and someone ELSE might have driven to the next town for a smoothey in it ....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 825 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
Straggler writes: An animal that climbs trees with it's belly dragging across the surface of the tree arguably has much the same reasons for an inverted pouch as a burrowing animal. If you climb a tree you do have to get back down too. Have you ever seen a koala traverse downwards? Much more useful for a koala would be a sideways facing pouch. Why has nature not produced this? Even better would be a pouch that rotates at the flick of a switch. A gentle spin speed would be natures very own merry go round.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024