Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,814 Year: 4,071/9,624 Month: 942/974 Week: 269/286 Day: 30/46 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Wombat Pouch
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4395 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 30 of 85 (615901)
05-18-2011 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by InGodITrust
05-13-2011 3:25 PM


InGodITrust writes:
One of the best creationist arguments I have heard concerns the "backward" pouch of the wombat. Opposite to most marsupial pouches, the wombat's opens to the rear, which is valuable to it, as a burrowing animal, for keeping dirt out of the pouch. But how could the pouch turn around by natural selction?
When I first heard about this problem, I thought that the answer that would satisfy natural selection would be that the wobat evolved its pouch seperatly from marsupials that evolved front-opening pouches. But I just saw a TV show that said all of the world's marsupials have a common ancestor: a rat-like animal that lived in China.
So is there a well known solution to this probalem that I have missed? I searched the web and the EVC forums for discussion on it, but found none. Could the pouch have flipped around in one fell swoop, with a single genetic mutation? If so, wouldn't other simultateous mutations have had to occur to make the new pouch work? And if the pouch transitioned in a series of small steps, what would that have looked like?
IGIT
YEC here. I insist marsupials are just placentals who in some areas farthest from the Ark adapted a more productive reproductive system.
Marsupialism is just a minor adaptation.
Some marsupials have no pouch at all or just develop one when pregnant.
its no big deal.
Regardless of the pouch opening it was a quick reaction to make a covered area for the fetus to suckle. The folds in the skin quickly being used and then DNA remembered. Just like the way squirrels etc developed their flaps to glide from trees to trees.
It is unlikely or impossible for the original marsupial from whence came all sorts of marsupials to switch pouches back to front as needed from selection on mutation.
Time does not explain anything.
its best to see marsupials as exactly as what they appear to be. just modified placental creatures from the first migrations in a post flood world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by InGodITrust, posted 05-13-2011 3:25 PM InGodITrust has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Theodoric, posted 05-18-2011 7:42 AM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 32 by Admin, posted 05-18-2011 8:06 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 33 by Peter, posted 05-18-2011 8:17 AM Robert Byers has replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4395 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 35 of 85 (617120)
05-26-2011 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Theodoric
05-18-2011 7:42 AM


Re: Standard response
Theodoric writes:
I insist marsupials are just placentals who in some areas farthest from the Ark adapted a more productive reproductive system.
This is going to be my standard response to fundy nonsense.
Your beliefs have no effect on reality and evidently reality has no effect on your beliefs.
Instead of "insisting" how about some evidence or a reasonable argument to defend your beliefs other than "godidit".
It is unlikely or impossible for the original marsupial from whence came all sorts of marsupials to switch pouches back to front as needed from selection on mutation.
Can you support this assertion?
Its impossible because going front to back requires quite a mechanism.
To have the important change by evolution would require the changes in between a-b as being good enough for a while until selection went further.
Its unlikely and impossible surely.
Rather its the reasonable conclusion that upon a general change of creatures upon entering some areas or just because of the journey that reproduction was increased by limiting the duration of the fetus in the womb. it crawls out earlier and needs to suckle in a safe place.
A few marsupials only have them hang on and a few just have a pouch or opening for pregnancy. Then the rest have a fixed pouch because of size. so it follows the pouch was first just a layer of skin being pushed about and this for some very quickly got completly folded over and a part of the dna.
It is difficult to see these things happening suddenly however its easier then any claim of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Theodoric, posted 05-18-2011 7:42 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4395 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 36 of 85 (617121)
05-26-2011 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Peter
05-18-2011 8:17 AM


Re: Hang on ....
Peter writes:
So it i sperfectly reasonable that a placental mammal 'adapted' by doing away with the placenta and developing a pouch ... but it is NOT reasonable that the position of the pouch openeing changed?
Does that sound reasonable to you?
Which of those changes (biologically) seems the most radical?
Or did you mean that god just changed them after the flood?
Perfectly reasonable.
Not doing away with anything as much as speeding things up.
Marsupialism is all about speeded up processes. Thus suggesting the original need.
Moving a pouch front to back by selection on mutation just when needed is not only unlikely it makes evolution to have a goal.
Halfway around would have to be fine for a while before the step.
What would this look like and why not continue?
The pouch on the opposite side suggests clearly the pouch is not from time acting with selection but is related to the particular creature quickly as it were making a fold in its skin. then this becomes a part of the dna.
Nothing was seen but a creationist idea easily trumps a evolutionist one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Peter, posted 05-18-2011 8:17 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Wounded King, posted 05-26-2011 4:31 AM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 38 by Peter, posted 05-26-2011 2:55 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4395 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 40 of 85 (617269)
05-27-2011 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Wounded King
05-26-2011 4:31 AM


Re: Hang on ....
Wounded King writes:
What would this look like and why not continue?
It would look like the picture I posted above showing exactly that, do you ever read these threads before you post Robert or does seeing anything marsupial related just trigger a natural instinct to post the first thing that comes into your head, which naturally happens to be your usual ide fixe?
As for why not a central pouch wouldn't necessarily persist? Because certain configurations favoured increased reproductive success for specific ecological niches. So if a backward facing pouch tends to improve the survival of young in burrowing animals then that would be a factor leading to differential reproductive success of those animals with such a pouch and tending to increase the prevalence of backward facing pouches if the trait was heritable and potentially of favouring over time more backward facing pouches.
Nothing was seen but a creationist idea easily trumps a evolutionist one.
You haven't really articulated a coherent creationist idea. Saying that a fold of skin 'becomes part of the DNA' is biologically meaningless. Are you thinking of something along the lines of Waddington's 'Genetic Assimilation'?
TTFN,
WK
Nothing was witnessed and so my fold of skin is a good option for what is more likely.
You still are trying to make a movie of each stage of a moving pouch being greatly fine with generations of the creature.
You have it spinning it around and then presto it finds its right place as it is now.
If its spinning then why not speculate its gone around the block several times? how would you know?
You can always say its moving but theres no evidence of this.
The only evidence is what is now found.
All pouches fit just fine, save a few cases of being non existent or seasonal, and it makes a reasonable conclusion they are merely folds in the skin that were pased on to off spring.
This all starting from a need to store the fetus so as to get another one growing in the womb for creatures in a rush to repopulate the earth with the farthest areas showing this most.
marsupialism is simply about reproduction. the change is exactly why there was a change in creatures otherwise spot on identical to others on earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Wounded King, posted 05-26-2011 4:31 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Dr Jack, posted 05-27-2011 5:24 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 42 by Admin, posted 05-27-2011 8:09 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