What evolutionists consider observations of evolution is no more than observing micro changes.
By so stating, you only demonstrate your ignorance about evolution.
There are differences between marsupials and placentals, but there are striking more similarities.
Yet another demonstration of your ignorance.
Similarly, other marsupial animals (monkeys, squirels, bears...etc) behave in strikigly similar manner to that of the placental counterparts despite some physiological differences.
What's a marsupial monkey? I haven't come across those. Are you referring to
this creature, which isn't at all similar to a monkey?
And what's a marsupial squirrel? Are you referring to
Petaurus norfolcensis, which is not at all similar to a squirrel.
When you refer to marsupial bear, are you talking about the koala? It isn't at all similar to a bear. And it eats only eucalyptus leaves, while most bears are omnivores.
I wonder if
this creationist web page is where you are getting your misinformation. I'll quote one comment from the page, because it is so absurd that it is hilarious:
quote:
Unknown to many, there was a marsupial wolf. The Thylacine is more commonly called the Tasmanian Tiger because it had lateral stripes across its back, but the animal was a dog.
You've got to love that matter-of-fact assertion "but the animal was a dog". Only a hopelessly gullible fundie would be so foolish as to fall for such obvious nonsense.
Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber