Biogeography falsifies the worldwide flood.

Cut him some slack, Randy. I'm sure many creationists, even very biologically sophisticated ones like Dr. Hovind, regard platyhelminths, nematodes, acorn worms, and earthworms as all members of the Wormy Kind. Probably maggots and caterpillars, too.

Well, caterpillars are the wormy kind for only part of their lives. Then they go to sleep and evolve into the Bird kind.Wait, is that is a sign of Macro-Evolution from one Kind to another.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

lmao."even very biologically sophisticated ones like Dr. Hovind" caused much of a laugh too.

In responce to Randy about Marsupials. Marsupialism is just a condition of reproduction and not the dividing line between kins. It existed befor and after the flood. As neither evolutions or us have witnessed the origin and changes we all agree have taken place in creatures it for both open to interpretation. I conclude marsupialism is not a big change any more then colour change in people after the flood. We all have witnessed nothin' And we all can not verify by testing nothin'. The subject of origins is not science but instead a study in history. Otherwise it would not be contended.Also again Randy brings up as a fact the human definitions to separate the natural world. Like mammal etc. These are not the real differences or they are but it is still interpretation of humans. So creationists are not bound by it.Now you'all I as a Canadian creationist have taken the challenge of Randy that creationists couldn't answer the CLEAR evidence against the flood story by the marsupial situation. I have answered. I have answered very well. In fact my answer is more plausiible then your answers. And you have been forced to respond to my assertions while offering nothing substansive that I need to answer you.
Enough yelping and gasping. Randy and the rest did too pony up to the bar and admitt the australia business isn't a slam dunk for you folk after all. Indeed it fits fine with the creationist model of origins.
I claim, well not victory, but much land conquored. Biogeography should not fit well the flood story and yet it fits fine.
Regards Rob

Oh boy! So now mammals and marsupials are the same "kind"? Is that what you are saying!????Before you answer you had better understand that NONE of the creationist sources ( like AIG and ICR ) will agree with you. You also have to understand that you have to live with the consequences of this.Also this is such an astonishing statment that is so different than any one has put forward before that I have to ask you what the dividing line between kinds is then?Just how do you tell when one critter and another critter are different kinds? Can we examine the genes involved? Do we just go on what they look like?With marsupials and mammals in the same kind there can't be all that many kinds altogether can there? Would you like to list some example kinds starting with the marmal "kind" (that is the kind which includes mammals and marsupials).

'Yes' on the first statement, 'No' on the second.I have a problem with your inability to define "kind." You continue to use "kind" as an intregal part of your arguments, yet your use of it is so ambiguous that it renders many of your statements pointless.In another thread I joked that if we consider all life as part of a single "kind," then evolutionists and literalists would get along much better.Considering your lumping of marsupials and placentals into a single kind (since they are "just a condition of reproduction"), you are getting closer to such an extreme.If the complex differences in reproductive systems don't serve to divide kinds, what does? The outward appearance of an organism? That's grade-school logic at work - it would likely state that all furry four-limbed animals are of the same kind. And what exactly do you base this conclusion upon?

He has already answered that. In Message 133 he says... He has also said that the marsupial wolf is just a wolf Kind with a different reproductive system.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

First, when replying to someone can you use the red button at the bottom of the post. That way the author is notified that you have responded and we can also keep the subjects sorted and connected.ThanksTrying to get things sorthed out so please correct me if I misunderstand.You are saying that there is a KIND called wolves. It will contain wolves and the marsupial wolf.Would it also include dogs, foxes and coyotes?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

I conclude marsupialism is not a big change any more then colour change in people after the flood.

---

This is absurd. There is much, much more difference between marsupials and placentals than just there mode of reproduction. Morphologically, the marsupials are much closer to each other than they are to any placental -- given a skeleton, a good mammalian taxonimist would be able to classify it as either marsupial or placental. This is a post by Doubting Didymous on the Internet Infidels message board: This also doesn't include such things as the phylogenic trees based on genetics and molecular biology also confirm that marsupials are only very distantly related to placental mammals.

Of course your conclusiong makes not the least bit of sense and is based on total ignorance of biology. You really do need to study some biology before spouting any more such fanatasies. There is more internal anatomic and genetic difference between and any modern marsupial mammal and any placental mammal in spite of some outward appearances than there is between a human and a cow.If marsupials could have somehow and for some unknow reason evolved from placental mammals after the flood by "marsupialization" then humans could have evolved from bears in a few centuries and from apes in few generations. In case there is any one else as ignorant of biology as you are I thought I post a bit about the differences between placental and marsupial mammals.
ADW: Metatheria: INFORMATION

quote:

---

Marsupials differ from placentals in a number of important and obvious ways. The palate of marsupials is usually "fenestrated," that is, it contains large gaps or spaces in its bony surface. The angular process of the dentary is inflected (bent) medially in almost all marsupials. The braincase is small and narrow. It houses a relatively small and simple brain compared to that of similar-sized placentals. The jugal is large, extending posteriorally so that it actually contacts and forms part of the glenoid fossa. The lacrimal canal is slightly anterior to the orbit so that it opens on the surface of the face rather than inside the orbital space. The bullae are sometimes not ossified, and when they are, they are formed largely by extensions from the alisphenoid.

​

Tooth form varies considerably among species of marsupials, but an easy and reliable character for recognizing members of the group is that the number of incisors in the upper jaw is different from the number in the lower (except in one family, the Vombatidae). The number is equal in most (but not all!) placentals. Also, the maximum number of incisors (seen in several families) is 5/4, in contrast to 3/3 in placentals. The number of premolars and molars also differs between the groups (3/3 4/4 in marsupials, 4/4 3/3 in placentals), and the pattern of tooth replacement (milk teeth by adult teeth) differs, but these traits are difficult to use to recognize specimens.

​

The postcranial skeletons of marsupials differ from those of placentals (but resemble monotremes) in that modern marsupials have epipubic bones in the body wall, projecting anteriorally from the pelvis (epipubics are vestigial in recently extinct thylacines and were absent in at least one extinct group).

​

Marsupials and placentals differ strongly in their reproductive anatomy and pattern. In females, the reproductive tracts of marsupials are fully doubled. The right and left vaginae do not fuse to form a single body, as they do in all placentals, and birth takes place through a new median canal, the pseudovaginal canal. Right and left uteri also are unfused (varying degrees of fusion are found in placentals). Also, in the developing marsupial embryo, the arrangement of ducts that become the female reproductive tract is different in marsupials compared to placentals. In some (but by no means all) species of marsupials, females develop a pouch or marsupium in which the young are nursed. In males, the penis, like the female vagina, is bifid or doubled. The scrotum lies in front of the penis instead of posterior to it.

​

But perhaps the most conspicuous difference between marsupials and placentals is in the degree of development of the young at birth. Marsupial young are tiny at birth; litters always weigh less than 1% of the mother's body weight and individual young sometimes weigh only a few milligrams. They are born after a very short gestation period (8-43 days, depending on species; this is less or equal to the length of an estrus cycle), and in what seems to our placental-biased point of view to be an extraordinarily underdeveloped state. A placenta is formed in only a few species, and even in those the gestation period is extraordinarily short. At the time newborn marsupials emerge from their mother's reproductive tract and crawl to the pouch, they are tiny and have just begun forming functional organs. The forelimbs are fairly well developed (the young pull themselves along the mother's belly by grasping hairs with the forelimbs), but the hindlimbs are mere paddles. The heart, kidneys, and lungs are all barely functional. Even the brain is at a very early ontogenetic stage. Most development takes place in the pouch, and the lactation period is prolonged.

---

Genetic evidence indicates that marsupial and placental mammals diverged about 130 million years ago and recently discovered fossil evidence backs up those estimates.Carnegie team finds earliest known relative of marsupials Eomaia scansoria - earliest eutherian mammal Creationists are not bound by reality either. They can make up any ad hoc explanation they like at it bothers them not one bit when the ad hoc "explanation" for one fact directly contradicts their ad hoc explanation for another. You may not be able to tell mammals from other vertibrates but but mammals are easily distiguished from non mammals at least with all modern species. The transitional therapsid mammal like reptiles are another story but somehow they all must have died out right after the flood.Some characteristics of mammals not found in other classes include
mammary glands (well duh)
Hair follicles
Projecting ears (pinnea)
A jaw composed of only dentary bone
Three middle ear ossicles.Mammals whether egg laying monotremes, marsupial or placental all share these unique characteristics. These are real differences from other vertebrats and not just intepretations. You have answered with absurd fantasies. I wouldn't call that very well but in your total ignorance you may think so. Your unsupported assertions are pure fantasy. I don't know why I bother to respond to such nonsense. Maybe I should stop wasting my time. It is not only a slam dunk but a thunder dunk. Right now the score on this forum is about 90-0 against the Young Earth Creationists. If you call complete falsification fitting well. You have been stomped but are too ignorant of biology and too incapable of logical thought to see it. The Black Knight claimed victory too. You may think your "model" just has a flesh wound but you are totally beaten. Do you want me to come back so you can try to bite my knees off?You will be remembered in the future when, as often happens on C/E debate boards, someone asks "What is the silliest creationist claim you have ever seen?" There are a lot of them out there but I think that "instant marsupialization" will be hard to beat.Randy

So kangaroos can choose to reproduce that way, I guess? And marsupials decide to have radically different DNA from placentals, and that weird extra bone sticking forward from their pelvis....
Amazing.

quote:

---

In responce to Randy about Marsupials. Marsupialism is just a condition of reproduction and not the dividing line between kins. It existed befor and after the flood. As neither evolutions or us have witnessed the origin and changes we all agree have taken place in creatures it for both open to interpretation. I conclude marsupialism is not a big change any more then colour change in people after the flood. We all have witnessed nothin' And we all can not verify by testing nothin'. The subject of origins is not science but instead a study in history. Otherwise it would not be contended.

---

We can test what happened in the past, hence the large field of criminal forensics. By using the same methodology, of making predictions and seeing if those predictions are born out by the evidence, then we can be sure that we are on the right track.According to mainstream science, Australia broke away from the rest of the continents before the arrival of placental animals (through evolution I might add). This is why we don't see placental mammals in Australia. The prediction within evolution is that after two species split off from one another that different mutations accumulate in the two different populations. Therefore, we would expect a large difference in DNA sequences between placental and marsupial mammals. This is exactly what we find. We see that the tasmanian wolf is much more closely related to the kangaroo, wombat, and koala than the tasmanian wolf is to the north american wolf. The differences in a pairwise matching of the cytb gene between wolves, humans, and tasmanian wolves show an interesting pattern. The differences between NA wolves and tasmanian wolves is about the same as between NA wolves and humans. Through the mechanism of accumulated mutation in separate populations, evolution does a splendid job of explaining both the fossil record in Australia, and the world in general, and the independent measure of DNA differences.How does your theory stack up? You hypothesize that marsupials and placentals of similar look used to interbreed, or at least very closely related. Therefore, we would expect a closer DNA match between tasmanian and NA wolves. We would not expect a closer match between tasmanian wolves and kangaroos. We find the opposite. Your predictions are not born out by the evidence while the theory of evolution is able to predict such relationships before the DNA sequence is even done.You claim that all interpretations are equal. Well, sorry to break it to you but you are wrong. Some interpretations, like yours, are incapable of explaining ALL of the data. However, science is lucky enough to have an interpretation that jives with ALL of the data, and falsified by NONE of it. This is the theory of evolution.

OK I will do this reply thing but I receive a lot of responces with points duplicated but I'm new to this so here goes.
Yes wolves foxes ,marupial wolves and other wolf kinds in the post flood record are all the dog kind. Perhaps one could go further and say dogs and bears are one kind. All that matters is that one kind came off the ark and then we can figure out its present day subkinds.

I am aware of the other anatomical connections of marsupials to each other and the differences between them and placentals.
What of it. These creatures being similiar in any way is a result of location and evirorment. In the arctic many creatures are white and heavy furred but it is not evidence (anyone says) of ancestry.
Evolutionists are the ones who draw from a mouse in Asia a wolf and from a different mouse entirely in Australia a Marsupial mouse. Creationists accept micro changes though not macro.
And a wolf is a wolf whether its pouched or not. The first instinct is often the right one. This also to the others on this point.

Do you have any evidence (or even a creationist website for that matter) that states marsupials and placentals are grouped into the same "kind" based on outward appearance? or is this solely based on your "first instinct"?