Biogeography falsifies the worldwide flood.

quote:

---

Quickly it is to be repeated that creationists do not disagree with speciation processes as long as they do not turn one kind into another.

---

So you don't have a problem with humans evolving from an ape like ancestor? After all, apes and humans are in the primate kind.

quote:

---

The Dodo is simply a bird who having found a home on a obscure island no longer needed to fly and its wings atrophied.

---

But where are his ancestor's that radiated out from Mt. Ararat? What we should see is winged Dodo's in Turkey, but we don't see anything like that. And then, why just that island. You would expect the same Dodo on islands around the Globe.

quote:

---

Also the sloth in Americas is simply the remaining one of a very active creature in the past. Its slowness is a late adaptation.

---

And where is the evidence for fast-moving sloths?

quote:

---

The Marsupials were in the past, post flood, as or more common in South America then Australia. Of coarse it is impossible that Marsupials from the flood went to those areas only and other creatures went elsewhere exclusively. Therefore as Sherlooke Holmes would say whatever possibility remains however unlikely must be the truth.

---

Except for evolution, of course. How about Australia broke away from the supercontinent before the evolution of placental mammals. This would explain why the only mammals in Australia are humans and placental mammals transported there by humans. Not only is this theory plausible, but it is supported by plate tectonics, geography, and the Australian fossil record. This is what separates theories, the presence of evidence.Just for fun, I could claim that Noah built cattleguards all the way around Australia which kept the placental mammals out. Of course, I have no evidence that any such thing happened, which is why the theory with evidence wins out.

quote:

---

so I suggest marsupialism was just an original state and not evidence of different creatures but the same creatures with a different reproductive system.

---

Wow! I wish I could contort the human language with such bravado. If you allow the same creature to have such wildly divergent reproductive systems then you can't deny that macroevolution is real. Apes to humans is a far cry easier than marsupial to placental mammal. You might as well claim that mammals could have had scales, and therefore dinosaurs were just a different kind of mammal. You have stretched logic to the breaking point.

quote:

---

Randy criticisms was about small or slow creatures migrating from the Ark. The moles,echina and koala all migrate over thier own territory now quite fine. And the few hundred years after the flood would suffice.

---

So we have a slowly rising water level that allows slow moving animals to slowly migrate to Australia. Ok, lets see if this idea is kept.Very next sentence . . .

quote:

---

Randy brought up an important point about what did not migrate to Australia. Gazelles etc No problem. In the short time after the flood and before the waterlevel rose separating Australia from other land only certain animals made it over.

---

So now we have quickly rising flood waters that keep fast moving, migratory animals out of Australia. Anybody else picking up on this totally inconsistant, ad hoc argument?

quote:

---

Perhaps it was jungle and brush land and so not suited to the other creatures. As Australia today is not hospitable to deer.

---

You mean brushland where gazelles live today? Or do you mean how terribly placental mammals like the rabbit and dingo are coping with conditions Australia. Sorry, placental mammals do just fine in Australia. In fact, in the case of the rabbit (who can easily outrun a lot of the marsupials in Australia) placental mammals do better than the marsupials.

quote:

---

I would also add it is relatively recent that plate teutonics was accepted in Geology circles. And yet till then the evolution community would of offered explanation after explanation to explain the marsupial world down there. Not science just speculation. Just asv now thier theory for australia is without verifiable evidence.

---

Plate tectonics was accepted because it was SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE. It is not speculation, but rather a long and arduous task of cataloging geologic formations around the world. Again, it is not speculation but a conclusion drawn from the DATA. Can you show me the data that lead to the conclusion of a young earth and a flood?

quote:

---

In responce to Randy about Marsupials. Marsupialism is just a condition of reproduction and not the dividing line between kins. It existed befor and after the flood. As neither evolutions or us have witnessed the origin and changes we all agree have taken place in creatures it for both open to interpretation. I conclude marsupialism is not a big change any more then colour change in people after the flood. We all have witnessed nothin' And we all can not verify by testing nothin'. The subject of origins is not science but instead a study in history. Otherwise it would not be contended.

---

We can test what happened in the past, hence the large field of criminal forensics. By using the same methodology, of making predictions and seeing if those predictions are born out by the evidence, then we can be sure that we are on the right track.According to mainstream science, Australia broke away from the rest of the continents before the arrival of placental animals (through evolution I might add). This is why we don't see placental mammals in Australia. The prediction within evolution is that after two species split off from one another that different mutations accumulate in the two different populations. Therefore, we would expect a large difference in DNA sequences between placental and marsupial mammals. This is exactly what we find. We see that the tasmanian wolf is much more closely related to the kangaroo, wombat, and koala than the tasmanian wolf is to the north american wolf. The differences in a pairwise matching of the cytb gene between wolves, humans, and tasmanian wolves show an interesting pattern. The differences between NA wolves and tasmanian wolves is about the same as between NA wolves and humans. Through the mechanism of accumulated mutation in separate populations, evolution does a splendid job of explaining both the fossil record in Australia, and the world in general, and the independent measure of DNA differences.How does your theory stack up? You hypothesize that marsupials and placentals of similar look used to interbreed, or at least very closely related. Therefore, we would expect a closer DNA match between tasmanian and NA wolves. We would not expect a closer match between tasmanian wolves and kangaroos. We find the opposite. Your predictions are not born out by the evidence while the theory of evolution is able to predict such relationships before the DNA sequence is even done.You claim that all interpretations are equal. Well, sorry to break it to you but you are wrong. Some interpretations, like yours, are incapable of explaining ALL of the data. However, science is lucky enough to have an interpretation that jives with ALL of the data, and falsified by NONE of it. This is the theory of evolution.

quote:

---

And a wolf is a wolf whether its pouched or not. The first instinct is often the right one. This also to the others on this point.

---

The tasmanian wolf is also called a tasmanian tiger by other people. So which is it, a wolf or a tiger?If I called something a ton-ton, what kind would you put it in without seeing the animal? After seeing the animal, how do you judge which "kind" it goes in? Do you use subjective judgements or objective criteria?What piece of potential evidence would falsify your position? This is important, since this sets the guidelines for further investigation.Just as an example, evolution would be falsified if the tasmanian wolf DNA matched north american wolf DNA better than north american wolv DNA matched a St. Bernard's DNA. What would a potential falsification be for the "kind" theory?

quote:

---

Again always you guys answer by bringing up more untested,unproven premises.
DNA is new and primitive.

---

Can you show me what tests have shown that DNA is new and primitive?

quote:

---

There is no evidence that DNA connections are evidence of ancestry.

---

Ever heard of paternity tests based on DNA? Are you saying that we can't prove paternity unless we actually witness the father's sperm fertilizing the mother's egg?

quote:

---

THere is just one model for life and similar body types equal similar DNA.

---

Then why is the tasmanian wolf's DNA more like a kangaroo's DNA than a north american wolf's DNA? I really wan't you to answer this question, no more dodging the tough Q's.

quote:

---

DNA similirity between marsupials is just because of similar makeup on some points.

---

Earlier you claimed that the tasmanian wolf and the north american wolf were almost identical except for a pouch. So which is it? Are they not alike because they are marsupials and placentals now? This is a 180 degree turn from your earlier arguments.

quote:

---

YOu prove nothing by claiming DNA.

---

Watson and Crick claimed DNA. Evolutionists point to the pattern of DNA sequence that we see in living organisms. And it isn't after the fact, either. Evolution has made ACCURATE PREDICTIONS of the DNA sequences before the DNA sequences are even done. I have a feeling that this is beyond your grasp. How about this, why don't you tell me the predictions on DNA similarities as they are found in Genesis?

quote:

---

DNA is in a primitive state of our understanding right now is my point. And conclusions about it in the future will constantly change ideas about its reliability and it works.

---

This coming from a person who thinks that there are only minor differences between marsupialism and placentalism. Sorry, but you knowledge of biology is much more unreliable than the work of thousands of moleculary biologist over the last 50 years. Think of it this way. If someone came on here who had never read the Bible and claimed that it was all wrong, how would you rank that person's opinion? We are asking the same from you. Before you judge the last 150 years of science as bunk, you might actually want to learn a little about it. The work on DNA in the last 50 years, or more accurately the last 20 years, is astounding. We have sequenced the genomes of numerous mammals and even more bacteria. I will state that there is still much to learn, but all we need for constructing "trees of life" is the sequences themselves. Guess what, we have those sequences. And the best part is, the new sequences that come out on almost a daily basis match evolutionary predictions. Again, what are the predictions on DNA similarity of living species made by the authors of Genesis?

quote:

---

So a marsupial kangaroo and marsupial wolf DNA could be similiar because the reproduction business dominates in the DNA. Even though the Marsupial wolf and our wolf are the same one originally.

---

If they were previously interbreeding then there is no way that large portions of their DNA would be different since those genomes would have been mixing together. Sorry, but this is as far from reality as you can get. Next you will probably state, without evidence I am sure, that reproduction was different in the pre-flood world. Only another ad hoc hypothesis will save you it appears.Secondly, the gene I listed before, cytb, is involved in metabolism, not reproduction. This gene makes cytochrome B, and important enzyme that is found in almost every organism in the world, including bacteria. Why would this gene have to be different for marsupial or placental fetal development? Short answer, absolutely nothing. Again, your arguments are really falling apart. Any claim of "victory" or that your interpretations "make better sense" are ringing hollow.

quote:

---

I cam,I saw,I conquored

---

I bet you said the same thing when leaving your english classes. Unfortunately, you couln't even conquer your own ignorance of biology, your claim of victory is ringing very hollow.

quote:

---

I have not proven my points. YET i have proven that Marsupial biogeography fits creationists models of the past fine. Watch the equation.

---

It is the creationist models that are incorrect. I could claim that UFO's beamed all of the marsupials to Australia using quantum beams. Therefore, since all of the marsupials are in Australia that proves that UFO's exist. I could go on, but I think you get the point.What we have is the obnoxious, bloodied drunk guy who claims he beat up everyone in the bar when in fact he tripped over his own shoelaces. It doesn't even take a high school diploma to understand how utterly false your claim of victory is.

quote:

---

I have not proven my points. YET i have proven that Marsupial biogeography fits creationists models of the past fine. Watch the equation.

---

The only thing I learned was the need for a better science education curiculum in high schools. That, and how vacuous creationists can really be.

quote:

---

If a serious line of arguementation appears then I will respond but otherwise I'm off to fight in the other forums on evcforum.

---

How about this. Positive evidence for anything that you have claimed in the last hundred posts.

quote:

---

Did the tusami happen at low tide or high tide?

---

Depends on which coast we are talking about. On some coasts it was low tide, and on some it was high tide.

quote:

---

I agree that God went poof and the plates moved on a hydroplate of steamed waters with just a touch of his hand as it was crushing under the continental plates(water very incompressible and making it the perfect lubricant, in respect to Walts hydroplate theory).

---

Did God also go "poof" to get rid of all the heat from the steamed waters, and all of the heat from the plates rubbing against each other? If not, all life would have fried. And if you have to keep relying on "poofs" then is it really a theory or apologetics?

quote:

---

Walt hydroplate theory does explain how God went poof and how easily the plates could of moved without shaking the whole earth apart.

---

But it doesn't explain where all the heat went, it doesn't explain the formation of the Hawaiian Islands, or how the current rate of tectonic movement is consistent with all radiometric dating. All it explains is the gullibility of creationists.