Birds and Reptiles

Indeed as a poster said here its a great deal about the classification system. I a;ways find these corrupts interpretations.
For example I know placentals and marsupials are the same creatures with minor local area adaptations. A common theme in the fossil record also of segregating creatures on minor points in union that otherwise they would be in different groups.
Likewise i say there is no such divisions as mammals or reptiles. jUst kinds with like details for like needs.The YEC can help here first by saying there are no dinosaur division or types of creatures. All there is IS kinds. What are called dinos are just some kinds of creatures with like details.
A t-rex is unrelated to a triceratops.
So these dinos with some bird bone likeness are simply creatures with the same needs as birds. Probably they need hollow bones to increase speed as birds need them to decrease weight. Yet its not a trail to identity.
Some of these dinos said alike to birds might just be big birds with some details needed by "dinos".
Again it comes down to classification systems and not actual biological evidence. Even if bones count as biology.

No matter. its the same old wrong ideas on classification.
They simply and too quickly got too excited about minor details as reproductive organs while ignoring the great details of fantastic anatomical likeness.
they just couldn't imagine what trigger or need or mechanism could affect creatuers all in a certain area at once.

Nope. in fact marsupials were very common in south America.
It was upon the early migration into these areas and not the later overlapping migrations that tells the tale here.

Your right but i'm still new here and so won't presume to start threads myself.
I was just making a comparison.

Likeness is from profound results of anatomical arrangement.
To ignore the fantastic sameness of looks of creatures claimed unrelated suggests someone is being fooled here .
me or you?Genetics stuff is speculation. They only presume connections because of like dna. however if creatures changed in a area like i insist they did they also would have the same DNA.

South america had as much diversity in marsupials as Australia once.
Just wiki Marsupial history.
after the flood as creatures moved to different areas they needed new ways to quickly coloninize the areas. marsupialism simply was a faster way to reproduce and was employed by creatures who went the farthest from the ark.
It follows that post flood adaptation was the norm after the flood.
Creating great diversity.

In fact i wrote a essay called "Post flood Marsupial Migration explained" by Robert Byers. Just google.
I know my issue.if there was a general change there would be a general same Dna change. DNA just follows parts because everything in nature comes from a common blueprint. cReationists always say this.The like traits are so alike they MUST invoke convergent evolution to explain them. The few traits in common deal with minor points of reproduction. A few other minor details of the brain, teeth, etc. Yet to see this defining the marsupials into a group means to ignore the fantastic number of traits that would simply put them into regular groups of creatures.

Observe with ALL attention without preconceived ideas.
In fact i suggest one observe on youtube the marsupial wolf and see all the likeness to a regular dog. Moving or still pictures.
The appearance of a creature is due to profound anatomical structures. It requires great twists and turns to show to our eyes how things are related to each other.
In fact its so important they must invoke a special concept in evolution to explain it. Convergent evolution.

Again south america was full of marsupial types .Then there was extinction leaving just a few.In marsupial reproduction one can move product faster. i think this was more of a big deal in the past and now not being needed simply the remnant of this remains. i seen on tv where a kangaroo can have one fetus stored, ready to develop, one in the body growing and one in the pouch. after the flood to speed up repopulating the earth this mechanism kicked in upon some trigger for creatures going the farthest away from the ark. I don'r mean South American "marsupials" are related to australian ones . marsupialism is just a minor adaptation to regular creatures.

Did you watch the moving marsupial wolf?
I say its just a wolf with a few minor details of difference. The same details of all the creatures in the area. There are marsupial lions, moles, rats, tapirs, bears and so on.
To have something look like something else requires fantastic conformity of thousands of twists and turns of anatomy.
The classification system has simply been incompetent and likewise for many orders of creatures in the fossil record.

Making lists doesn't matter. The creatures that are alike tell the tale. anyways the creatures in australia would just be the same with creatures everywhere filling the post flood planet at that time. tHe fossil record is full of creatures that have gone extinct all over the planet since the biblical flood by this creationist reckoning.Australia is a window into the whole world at that time.

Agreed but I need time right now.
it is off thread.