Marsupial evolution

Well, I am saying ASSUMING for sake of argument common descent via random mutations, etc,....that the make-up of the available animals and plants which presumably is indeed produced via this random process (according to evos) is a VERY significant aspect of the environment. That is just a fact.Neodarwinian evos are adaptionists claiming the environment and even very different environments are such a powerful influence as to produce the marsupial and placental pairs. This hypothesis is not supported by any actual studies and empirical data and is highly illogical. For one, the nonbiological environment is markedly different between places, and another the environment also includes the biota within it. Since you agree with me on genetic convergence or at least to a degree, why didn't you just say that up-front (as I already suggested you had agreed there were studies indicating that before)?However, genetic convergence is different than the adaptionism aka as NeoDarwinism which insists that the environment is the crucial commonality creating marsupual and placental pairs. In reality, the adaptionist position is untested here. The evidence supports the front loading or interior mechanism position (men like De Grasse) so often derided by Darwinists.Now, just for the record, I am not saying I agree with de Grasse, nor the IDers of today that advocate front loading, but there position is definitely more in line with the facts than NDists aka as evos.

Really? So why would their ecological niche be the same? Keep in mind there is little reason to believe a random process would duplicate itself unless there is some other factor. The other factor evos usually give is the environment. Keep in mind the ecological niche is produced, presumably, by the available biota, and the available biota certainly differs in different parts of the world, and increases presumably according to evos by random mutations conferring selective advantage and creating evolution.There is absolutely therefore no reason ND processes should create placental and marsupial pairs. Carnivorous dinosaurs and other carnivores eat large herbivores too. It's not like dogs and thycines are the only predators that could evolve in this niche. There is no reason to expect a duplication in a random process. Not really. All sorts of creatures could evolve and do the same thing. Don't large cats eat the same prey, for example?How about marsupial and placental mice? Marsupial Rats and Mice - Species, Australia, Spp, and Predators - JRank Articles Why should marsupial mice be so similar to placental mice when they are ecologically "simmilar" to weasels, for example, and play a role more similar to shrews, similar to mice but not exactly the same? Marsupial Rats and Mice - Species, Australia, Spp, and Marsupials - JRank Articles

You still offer no reason for placental and marsupial pairs. The reason why there should not be pairs is that evolution is supposedly a random process in terms of mutations. The reason evos give is the environment but the environment is different and the ecological niches are different.

So is it a guided process? So mutatation is't incorporated into the Theory of Evolution? Care to prove that? I hope you are not serious here. Yea, things can happen again. There is an area called statistics dealing with this. The chances of some things occuring are so remote that they are considered to have some cause if they do, repeatedly.