Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9035 total)
87 online now:
Aussie, nwr, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), ringo, vimesey (6 members, 81 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,629 Year: 3,275/14,102 Month: 216/724 Week: 65/93 Day: 4/18 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Birds and Reptiles
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 1000 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 106 of 135 (610495)
03-30-2011 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Robert Byers
03-29-2011 9:20 PM


Marsupials and Placental mammals
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Robert Byers, posted 03-29-2011 9:20 PM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Robert Byers, posted 04-04-2011 3:48 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 3264 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 107 of 135 (610958)
04-04-2011 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Dr Jack
03-30-2011 9:29 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Dr Jack, posted 03-30-2011 9:29 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Wounded King, posted 04-04-2011 4:08 AM Robert Byers has responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 3264 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 108 of 135 (610959)
04-04-2011 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by arachnophilia
03-30-2011 11:47 AM


Re: redneck fail.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by arachnophilia, posted 03-30-2011 11:47 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by arachnophilia, posted 04-04-2011 1:03 PM Robert Byers has responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 3264 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 109 of 135 (610960)
04-04-2011 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Dr Jack
03-30-2011 11:52 AM


Re: Marsupials and Placental mammals
Your right but i'm still new here and so won't presume to start threads myself.
I was just making a comparison.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Dr Jack, posted 03-30-2011 11:52 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2990 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
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 responded

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

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 239 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 111 of 135 (610979)
04-04-2011 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Robert Byers
04-04-2011 3:46 AM


Re: redneck fail.
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).


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Robert Byers, posted 04-04-2011 3:46 AM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Robert Byers, posted 04-08-2011 2:45 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 3264 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 112 of 135 (611463)
04-08-2011 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Wounded King
04-04-2011 4:08 AM


Re: Unnatural history
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Wounded King, posted 04-04-2011 4:08 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Wounded King, posted 04-08-2011 4:12 AM Robert Byers has responded
 Message 115 by Blue Jay, posted 04-08-2011 12:01 PM Robert Byers has responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 3264 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 113 of 135 (611465)
04-08-2011 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by arachnophilia
04-04-2011 1:03 PM


Re: redneck fail.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by arachnophilia, posted 04-04-2011 1:03 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by arachnophilia, posted 04-08-2011 8:58 PM Robert Byers has responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2990 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
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 responded

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

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 115 of 135 (611505)
04-08-2011 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Robert Byers
04-08-2011 2:30 AM


Re: Unnatural history
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.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Robert Byers, posted 04-12-2011 1:54 AM Blue Jay has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 239 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 116 of 135 (611592)
04-08-2011 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Robert Byers
04-08-2011 2:45 AM


Re: redneck fail.
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:
See also: Evolution of mammals

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.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Robert Byers, posted 04-08-2011 2:45 AM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Robert Byers, posted 04-12-2011 2:02 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 3264 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 117 of 135 (611893)
04-12-2011 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Wounded King
04-08-2011 4:12 AM


Re: Unnatural history
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Wounded King, posted 04-08-2011 4:12 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Wounded King, posted 04-12-2011 4:44 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 122 by Boof, posted 04-12-2011 7:26 PM Robert Byers has responded
 Message 123 by arachnophilia, posted 04-12-2011 7:45 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 3264 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 118 of 135 (611894)
04-12-2011 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Blue Jay
04-08-2011 12:01 PM


Re: Unnatural history
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Blue Jay, posted 04-08-2011 12:01 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Blue Jay, posted 04-12-2011 12:47 PM Robert Byers has responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 3264 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 119 of 135 (611895)
04-12-2011 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by arachnophilia
04-08-2011 8:58 PM


Re: redneck fail.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by arachnophilia, posted 04-08-2011 8:58 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2990 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
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 yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021