Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,577 Year: 4,834/9,624 Month: 182/427 Week: 95/85 Day: 2/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Wombat Pouch
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9274
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 31 of 85 (615910)
05-18-2011 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Robert Byers
05-18-2011 3:47 AM


Standard response
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?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Robert Byers, posted 05-18-2011 3:47 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Robert Byers, posted 05-26-2011 12:55 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13081
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 32 of 85 (615911)
05-18-2011 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Robert Byers
05-18-2011 3:47 AM


Hi Robert,
As in your messages in other threads, this is just a collection of unsupported assertions. Your inability or unwillingness to support them will gradually turn this thread from discussion of the topic into cajoling you to support them and/or mockery of you, which we're not going to do again. Please post no messages to this thread that ignore any requests that you support what you claim.
Any and all viewpoints are welcome at EvC Forum, but stating your position is the beginning, not the end. Those who can do nothing more than state and restate their position over and over again while making up more and more should find something else to do.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Robert Byers, posted 05-18-2011 3:47 AM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1557 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 33 of 85 (615913)
05-18-2011 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Robert Byers
05-18-2011 3:47 AM


Hang on ....
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Robert Byers, posted 05-18-2011 3:47 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Robert Byers, posted 05-26-2011 1:03 AM Peter has replied

  
granpa
Member (Idle past 2419 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 10-26-2010


Message 34 of 85 (615915)
05-18-2011 8:33 AM



  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4446 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 4446 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

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 111 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 37 of 85 (617136)
05-26-2011 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Robert Byers
05-26-2011 1:03 AM


Re: Hang on ....
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Robert Byers, posted 05-26-2011 1:03 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Robert Byers, posted 05-27-2011 2:53 AM Wounded King has not replied
 Message 43 by misha, posted 06-09-2011 3:21 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1557 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 38 of 85 (617199)
05-26-2011 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Robert Byers
05-26-2011 1:03 AM


Re: Hang on ....
But ... biologically speaking which is a more radical change:
1) Slight differences in the positioning of an opening into a pouch
OR
2) The complete removal of a complex life support system.
I would really like to know your answer to the above conumndrum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Robert Byers, posted 05-26-2011 1:03 AM Robert Byers has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by NoNukes, posted 05-26-2011 3:11 PM Peter has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 85 (617203)
05-26-2011 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Peter
05-26-2011 2:55 PM


Re: Hang on ....
Peter writes:
But ... biologically speaking which is a more radical change:
The scientific answer is fairly obvious, but let's pretend that your answer to the question determines where you are going to spend eternity? Which then is more radical?
For Mr. Byers, better an explanation having no support at all, than one that involves evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Peter, posted 05-26-2011 2:55 PM Peter has seen this message but not replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4446 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

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 41 of 85 (617274)
05-27-2011 5:24 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Robert Byers
05-27-2011 2:53 AM


Re: Hang on ....
As usual when answering your posts I find myself wondering whether you can actually read. Also, will you please start a thread on your marsupial ideas so we can discuss them properly?
Robert Byers writes:
Nothing was witnessed and so my fold of skin is a good option for what is more likely.
This is simply not true. If I don't witness a car crash that doesn't suddenly make it being caused by a giant picking up the two cars and slamming them together suddenly likely. We don't need to directly witness things to understand what is likely, or unlikely, to occur.
You have it spinning it around and then presto it finds its right place as it is now.
Except, as every evolutionist in this thread has said, we don't think there was any spinning at all. How is it that you've managed to post in this thread without understanding that?
You can always say its moving but theres no evidence of this.
The only evidence is what is now found.
And that evidence clearly shows that organisms that share a common ancestor have differences in the shape, size and positioning of opening of their pouch.
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 is still as untrue as every other time you've asserted it. Will you please start a thread where we can discuss it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Robert Byers, posted 05-27-2011 2:53 AM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13081
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 42 of 85 (617283)
05-27-2011 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Robert Byers
05-27-2011 2:53 AM


Re: Hang on ....
Hi Robert,
Your approach in thread after thread has been to invent reasons for ignoring evidence, for example, inventing new definitions of geology and biology. Here today we see this new reason for ignoring evidence:
Robert Byers writes:
Nothing was witnessed and so my fold of skin is a good option for what is more likely.
Even you don't believe that the criteria for evidence should be that it have a direct eyewitness. I'm quite sure that when you check the mileage on your car before loaning it out to one of your kids for a short trip that when it comes back with hundreds of additional miles you'll conclude they didn't just go to the library, and you won't feel that you have to have actually witnessed them doing it.
If you would like to discuss the proposition that all evidence of events must have a direct eyewitness then please submit a thread proposal over at Proposed New Topics, but leave such ideas out of other threads.
Edited by Admin, : Typo.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Robert Byers, posted 05-27-2011 2:53 AM Robert Byers has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Peter, posted 06-28-2013 10:31 AM Admin has not replied

  
misha
Member (Idle past 4706 days)
Posts: 69
From: Atlanta
Joined: 02-04-2010


Message 43 of 85 (619359)
06-09-2011 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Wounded King
05-26-2011 4:31 AM


Re: Hang on ....
I'm not learned on the anatomy of marsupials. However, the first thing I thought of was: Why is upward or downward assumed to be the original orientation? My initial suspicion is that inward was the original orientation, similarly to a uterus. Rather than the opening of the pouch moving I would suspect that the base of the pouch moved from the inward apex to downward for the kangaroo and upward for the wombat. This would give us the current illusion of a downward opening when in fact it was the pouch itself that moved, not the opening.
With this series of events, small incremental changes from the inward pouch apex would have been beneficial for both the wombat and the kangaroo in their respective directions.
I guess its a bit hard to explain without diagrams.

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

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1557 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 44 of 85 (701954)
06-28-2013 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Admin
05-27-2011 8:09 AM


Re: Hang on ....
Although they might have left the keys in and someone ELSE might have driven to the next town for a smoothey in it ....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Admin, posted 05-27-2011 8:09 AM Admin has not replied

  
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 878 days)
Posts: 389
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 45 of 85 (705109)
08-23-2013 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Straggler
05-14-2011 11:03 AM


Straggler writes:
An animal that climbs trees with it's belly dragging across the surface of the tree arguably has much the same reasons for an inverted pouch as a burrowing animal.
If you climb a tree you do have to get back down too. Have you ever seen a koala traverse downwards? Much more useful for a koala would be a sideways facing pouch. Why has nature not produced this? Even better would be a pouch that rotates at the flick of a switch. A gentle spin speed would be natures very own merry go round.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Straggler, posted 05-14-2011 11:03 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-23-2013 9:41 AM Big_Al35 has replied
 Message 48 by jar, posted 08-26-2013 9:24 AM Big_Al35 has replied
 Message 50 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-26-2013 9:42 PM Big_Al35 has not replied
 Message 51 by Straggler, posted 08-27-2013 6:15 PM Big_Al35 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