Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Birds and Reptiles
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


(2)
Message 110 of 135 (610961)
04-04-2011 4:08 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Robert Byers
04-04-2011 3:44 AM


Unnatural history
They simply and too quickly got too excited about minor details as reproductive organs while ignoring the great details of fantastic anatomical likeness.
I see that you don't hold with such new fangled concepts as genetics, which overwhelmingly support the distinct grouping of the marsupials. It seems as if you have rather allowed the anatomical likeness to fool you into thinking it is anatomical identity, something anatomists and paleontologists could quickly disabuse you of. The idea that the only difference between marsupials and placentals is reproductive is patently untrue.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Robert Byers, posted 04-04-2011 3:44 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Robert Byers, posted 04-08-2011 2:30 AM Wounded King has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 114 of 135 (611475)
04-08-2011 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Robert Byers
04-08-2011 2:30 AM


Re: Unnatural history
Genetics stuff is speculation.
In what way? We have the genetic data. We have a very well developed understanding of how genetics works. What you basically seem to be saying is that all we know of genetics is trumped by some fairy tale you made up in your head, for some reason this is a less than compelling argument.
They only presume connections because of like dna.
As I already pointed out, this is not true there are several morphological features common to the Marsupialia which distinguish them and which have nothing to do with reproduction.
however if creatures changed in a area like i insist they did they also would have the same DNA.
Why? There is no rational reason to assume this is the case. This is simply more ad hoc nonsense to try and handwave away the evidence. All you have are some similar morphological traits more than counterbalanced by other dissimilar morphological traits and a whole wealth of genetics.
It doesn't seem as if you know much about marsupials other than that some of them kind of look like some placental mammals.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Robert Byers, posted 04-08-2011 2:30 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Robert Byers, posted 04-12-2011 1:32 AM Wounded King has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


(1)
Message 120 of 135 (611913)
04-12-2011 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Robert Byers
04-12-2011 1:32 AM


Re: Unnatural history
In fact i wrote a essay called "Post flood Marsupial Migration explained" by Robert Byers. Just google.
I know my issue.
Seriously? The fact that you can expand your nonsense 'these things look the same' argument to essay length and get it put up on creationist websites is proof of your understanding? An essay with only 3 references no less, I am awed by the depth of your knowledge.
if there was a general change there would be a general same Dna change.
Why? This doesn't follow at all. Many different DNA sequences can give rise to the same phenotypes. There is no reason why they need give the appearance to have all come from a common line of descent.
cReationists always say this.
Well that is true, but creationists always say lots of things that have no relationship to reality, that is just one of them. Instead of using the solid scientific grounding of 'made up shit that creationists say' what about providing some actual evidence for this being the case.
The like traits are so alike they MUST invoke convergent evolution to explain them.
Well we have evidence for the existence of convergent evolution. I'm not sure if you think CAPS is a convincing substitute for reasoned argument but the fact that they are similar enough to invoke the reasonable and observed phenomenon of convergent evolution seems considerably more reasonable than you invoking the crazy making stuff up out of nothing arguments you resort to.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Robert Byers, posted 04-12-2011 1:32 AM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024