Biogeography falsifies the worldwide flood.

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?

You say criminal forensics is science. Well just my point(one of them) It isn't science. It is just compiling evidence after the fact. Science is about testing etc. Otherwise every mother who finds cookie crumbs on her kids hands would be engage in science. She isn't.Again always you guys answer by bringing up more untested,unproven premises.
DNA is new and primitive. There is no evidence that DNA connections are evidence of ancestry. They are just evidence of similiar anatomical makeup. THere is just one model for life and similar body types equal similar DNA. DNA similirity between marsupials is just because of similar makeup on some points. YOu prove nothing by claiming DNA. Evolution was argued long before this came along.

Okay, Dogs and Bears are one KIND. How about Pandas?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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?

Genesis can't even agree on the Creation Myth. There are two entirely different stories in Genesis that are mutially exclusive. If one is true the other is a wrong. Either way, Genesis disproves Genesis.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Wow. Detailed anatomical comparisons, some quite subtle, indicate that the marsupial "wolf", the kangaroo, the koala, and the North American opossum are closely related to each other, but not very closely related to the placental mammals. Molecular biology confirms this.But we should ignore this. The marsupial "wolf" looks like a wolf at first glance, and so we should place it in the "dog kind". Such a breath taking advance in the science of taxonomy.Edited to add:
By this same "logic" we should classify whales as fish.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 07-10-2004 12:47 PM

I don't know about anyone else saying what I say but these are veryb small circles. To get to a new truth someone must be first and so you heard it here first what may become standard textbook creationist interpretation or maybe not.
Evidence! from evolutionists?! All this area is about studied speculation bothsides.

AGAIN lets remember what started all this. Randy said creationists could not explain Australia/marsupials situation. A common objection. Well I gave a explanation that "can" explain (and probably does)the matter. Its not my job to allow falsifing and predictions. Evolutions , despite the great conclusions drawn never employ sush matters relatove to what would be done in a study of science. Which is why creationists can easily attack and dismember it.

AGAIN lets remember what started all this. Randy said creationists could not explain Australia/marsupials situation. A common objection. Well I gave a explanation that "can" explain (and probably does)the matter. Its not my job to allow falsifing and predictions. Evolutions , despite the great conclusions drawn never employ sush matters relatove to what would be done in a study of science. Which is why creationists can easily attack and dismember it.

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.
Therefore one can explain away any situation where DNA is similiar between dissimilar creatures.
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. Lots of ways to deal with the new world of atoms. Again all is not proven on any side but is just accepted as plausible.

YEs the marsupial wolf looks like a wolf and the first hypothesis to its origin should be BECAUSE ITS A WOLF. I don't nmean to be unreasonable here. Many creatures in the Marsupial world likewise. It fact evolutionists must reach with theories to accomadate this mater. Its called convergent evolution and any book will discuss it. In short when evolutionists try to decide for us ancestry they say OF COARSE a ape is related to humans look at its similarity then if there is a problem they say convergent evolution. First disprove the obvious then get creative.

quote:

---

AGAIN lets remember what started all this. Randy said creationists could not explain Australia/marsupials situation. A common objection. Well I gave a explanation that "can" explain (and probably does)the matter. Its not my job to allow falsifing and predictions.

---

Your "explanation" is based on an astounding ignorance of basic biology and as a result is pure fanatasy. Not only does it not "probably" explain biogeography, your "explanation" is so absurd as to take a solid position on the all time honor role of creationist nonsense and that requires absurdity at a sublime level.Perhaps I should have said that creationists who have even the faintest clue about science can't provide a scientific explanation for biogeography. That would disqualify you from the beginning.I am beginning to suspect that you are a troll out to make creationists look bad and are just jerking our chains. It is hard for me to believe that someone could actually be as ignorant as you seem to be in this day and age.Randy

quote:

---

It fact evolutionists must reach with theories to accomadate this mater.

---

Actually, it was known before Darwin that life can be classified according to a heirarchical pattern, and that this pattern is obvious when one looks beyond superficial appearances.-

quote:

---

Its called convergent evolution and any book will discuss it.

---

Yes, the marsupial wolf looks, superficially, like a placental wolf because of convergent evolution. What is your problem here? Convergent evolution explains superficial similarities. Like why a marsupial wolf looks superficially like a placental wolf. Why a whale looks superficially like a fish. Why a bat looks superficially like a bird. Convergent evolution cannot explain the much more subtle morphological features that make it obvious that the carnivorous and fast marsupial wolf is related to the herbivorous and largely sedentary koala.--

quote:

---

First disprove the obvious then get creative.

---

Actually, nothing beats the creativity of creationists when they have to struggle against facts. Nasty things, those facts.

You have yet to be brave enough to define kinds? You said a "wolf is a wolf". Does that mean you have the tasmaian wolf and timber work in the same kind or not? But that isn't the DNA that is being examined in every case so this idea is, like the rest of your made up ideas, wrong.

quote:

---

So a marsupial kangaroo and marsupial wolf DNA could be similiar because the reproduction business dominates in the DNA.

---

What about the sections of DNA that don't code for reproductive organs?And to test your theory, do you think the DNA of the egg-laying playipus is going to be more like that of egg-laying reptiles (or birds), or more like live bearing mammals?Do you know that there are sharks that give birth to live young? Do you expect that these sharks should have DNA more like mammals or more like other sharks?