|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,418 Year: 3,675/9,624 Month: 546/974 Week: 159/276 Day: 33/23 Hour: 0/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Birds and Reptiles | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.4 |
It occurs to me that lengthy discussion of this point is wandering from the topic of this thread so I'd like to invite you, Robert, to submit a new topic proposal outlining your ideas.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4389 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4389 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4389 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Your right but i'm still new here and so won't presume to start threads myself.
I was just making a comparison.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined:
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1365 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Robert Byers writes: 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. yes. opossums are from south america originally. but if current location isn't a factor, and just original location, it's not possible to make any sense whatsoever out of your ideology: at some point, all "kinds" bottleneck through a great big boat. they all lived in one area. in other words, if the local adaptation happened after the flood, your ideas are meaningless (as this is relatively identical to evolution). but if the local adaptations happened before the flood, your ideas are meaningless (as current location has no bearing on adaptation).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4389 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Wounded King writes: 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 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4389 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
arachnophilia writes: Robert Byers writes: 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. yes. opossums are from south america originally. but if current location isn't a factor, and just original location, it's not possible to make any sense whatsoever out of your ideology: at some point, all "kinds" bottleneck through a great big boat. they all lived in one area. in other words, if the local adaptation happened after the flood, your ideas are meaningless (as this is relatively identical to evolution). but if the local adaptations happened before the flood, your ideas are meaningless (as current location has no bearing on adaptation). 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2719 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Robert.
Robert Byers writes: Likeness is from profound results of anatomical arrangement. What's so profound about overall appearance? The less attention to you pay to detail, the more different things may look alike. You're essentially arguing that it makes more sense to draw conclusions while squinting one's eyes than it does to draw conclusions after a careful, thorough observation. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1365 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Robert Byers writes: South america had as much diversity in marsupials as Australia once. okay. so location has nothing to do with it.
Just wiki Marsupial history. okay.
quote: hmm.
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. marsupial reproduction is not inherent faster. it's just that so much of the time is spent in the pouch instead of the womb.
It follows that post flood adaptation was the norm after the flood. Creating great diversity. one north american species of marsupial is no great diversity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4389 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Wounded King writes: 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 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4389 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Bluejay writes: Hi, Robert.
Robert Byers writes: Likeness is from profound results of anatomical arrangement. What's so profound about overall appearance? The less attention to you pay to detail, the more different things may look alike. You're essentially arguing that it makes more sense to draw conclusions while squinting one's eyes than it does to draw conclusions after a careful, thorough observation. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4389 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined:
|
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024