Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution vs Creation
wj
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 147 (17245)
09-12-2002 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Fred Williams
09-11-2002 7:30 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

This is insoluble? Are you serious? Single point mutations have been known to cause blindness in bats. In a relatively short period of time (given a small starting population, ie founder population), the entire mole population could easily become blind. When the rabbit was introduced to Australia, it took less than 50 years for the entire continent to become overrun! (now they’re a serious pest problem there).
quote:
The Kiwi, a flightless bird and the only monotremes (egg laying mammals) in world, the platypus and 2 species of echidna are found in the area and nowhere else.
Hmm, in the early 90s three fossil Platypus teeth were found in Argentina.
Surely, if rabbits can overrun the entire continent of Australia in 50 years, other animals can reach Australia in say, 400 years? How about 1000 to be safe? Yet you deem this as insoluble. It’s not only soluble, its quite plausible for marsupials, even "slow" ones, to make it there in 1000 years.
quote:
How could marsupial moles or other slow moving marsupials get from the Middle East and cross land bridges to Australia while faster moving placental mammals did not?
Placental mammals may have been there, but just did not take hold in the ecosystems. The continent did eventually become isolated. Thus, you had lots of founder populations, many of which probably died off. Why are there no fossils? The flood had already occurred! Doh! Very little fossilization goes on now. Bison are virtually extinct in the US, but you don’t find fossils of them lying around.

Fred, your ignorance of Australia and its biology appears to be encyclopaedic and your logic totally illogical.
How does creationism explain the presence of fossil monotremes only in the southern continents which were contiguous as Gondwanaland? Why no fossil monotremes in the northern continents, not even near Mt Ararat?
As Fred rightly points out placental mammals have been quite successful in colonising Australia as feral pests - rabbits, foxes, camels, horses, water buffalos, wild pigs etc. Why are all of these placentals successfully established now but could not be established previously, after a mythical world flood? And why no marsupial fossils in northern continents? Were the marsupials supernaturally guided directly to Australia without leaving evidence of their passage and no strays being attracted to suitable environments in other continents?
So why are there fossil marsupials in Australia but not significant numbers of placental mammals? Weren't the fossils formed from organisms killed in the flood? So you must be saying that Australia was populated almost exclusively by monotremes and marsupials before and after the flood. Is this starting to sound incredible?
Large flightless birds present more problems for your fantasy. Emu and cassowaries in Australasia, ostriches in Africa, rhea in South America, Moa in New Zealand. Why is each restricted to an single geographical area? If an emu can walk from Mt Ararat to Australia why not to South America or even New Zealand? Are all of the modern large flightless birds of the same biblical kind and derived from a single Noachian pair?
any more tall stories?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Fred Williams, posted 09-11-2002 7:30 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 147 (17319)
09-13-2002 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Fred Williams
09-12-2002 7:04 PM


Fred, I'm afraid you will have to expand on the details of your flood and Australian fauna fairytale before I can comment on what you seem to consider to be supporting evidence.
What was in Australia before the flood? What was in Australia after the flood? When did Australia become geographically isolated from other continents? Was it ever connected to other continents in your creationist past and, if so, which continents and when? What conventional strata are repersented by the noachian flood deposits? Are pre- and post-flood fauna completely different from eachother?
quote:
Are we to believe that many of the marsupials indigenous to Australia evolved down totally separate lines of decent from their placental counterparts in North & South America? Your excuse is called convergence, which by its very definition is an anti-evolutionary term since it describes a phenomenon that cannot be attributed to common decent. Yea, right, animals remarkably similar to each other all converged on the same pattern in totally different environments.
Fred, don't be misled by such common names as marsupial tiger, marsupial wolf, marsupial mouse etc. They may have some superficial similarities to placental counterparts but they are vastly different in their details. "Convergence" explains certain superficial similarities resulting from similar adaptations to similar environmental pressures. However it doesn't imply close relatedness. Any marsupial is more closely related to any other marsupial than to any "convergent" placental counterpart. You're not actually suggesting that a placental mouse evolved into a marsupial mouse or visa versa, are you?
Notice that the marsupial "lion" mentioned in one of your links had "a spectacular pair of piercing lower incisors" and "the limbs are adapted for climbing and grasping rather than for running."
I note that you also haven't provided your faithtale explanation for the various large flightless birds.
quote:
The vast majority of fossils in Australia of living Australian marsupials fall within the last 2 million years, a mere blink of an eye in the evolutionary time scale. These fossils could easily be of post flood animals that were caught in sink holes....Now couple this with the fact that marsupial fossils older than 2 million years (as dated by evolutionists) are very rare in Australia. What a surprise!
Logically, if marsupial fossils older than 2 million years are rare then the majority of marsupial fossils will fall within the last 2 million years. Is this supposed to be some sort of revelation?
I suppose you have some statistics on age of fossils cf. number of fossils to support your assertion of rareness? Does the same relationship apply for placental fossils?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Fred Williams, posted 09-12-2002 7:04 PM Fred Williams has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by wj, posted 11-03-2002 10:49 PM wj has replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 147 (17630)
09-17-2002 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Fred Williams
09-13-2002 8:00 PM


Fred, the weekend seems to be well and truly over.
Are you going to address the outstanding matters on this thread?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Fred Williams, posted 09-13-2002 8:00 PM Fred Williams has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by edge, posted 09-21-2002 5:34 PM wj has replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 147 (18088)
09-24-2002 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by edge
09-21-2002 5:34 PM


^ bump ^
Well, we're into a new week. Any responses Fred?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by edge, posted 09-21-2002 5:34 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by wj, posted 09-25-2002 9:08 PM wj has replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 147 (18304)
09-25-2002 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by wj
09-24-2002 12:41 AM


^ bump ^

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by wj, posted 09-24-2002 12:41 AM wj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by TheBlindProphet, posted 09-27-2002 4:40 PM wj has not replied
 Message 69 by wj, posted 10-31-2002 7:36 PM wj has not replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 147 (21217)
10-31-2002 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by wj
09-25-2002 9:08 PM


Fred, now that you have agian become active on this board, are you going to address the outstanding issues on this thread?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by wj, posted 09-25-2002 9:08 PM wj has not replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 147 (21479)
11-03-2002 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by wj
09-13-2002 12:25 AM


Fred, is your weekend over now? Are you going to respond to my questions in message #58? Are you going to address all the other outstanding issues in this thread? I note that Randy is back so we're all here awaiting your substantive responses.
Otherwise one could get the impression that your are making up a fairytale which has no supporting evidence, or that you are disingenuous and will not explain and defend your assertions in a neutral forum (ie. one which you do not moderate, either openly or in disguise).
O2U Fred

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by wj, posted 09-13-2002 12:25 AM wj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Mammuthus, posted 11-04-2002 3:30 AM wj has replied
 Message 80 by wj, posted 11-13-2002 8:32 PM wj has not replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 147 (21550)
11-04-2002 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Mammuthus
11-04-2002 3:30 AM


Well Fred, how about it? Are you going to respond to the outstanding issues in this thread. I suspect that you might be feeling very uncomfortable about the corner you have backed yourself into when making your assertions from a position of ignorance about Australian flora and fauna but you really can't back out without completely losing face.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Mammuthus, posted 11-04-2002 3:30 AM Mammuthus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 11-08-2002 12:18 AM wj has not replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 147 (22580)
11-13-2002 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by wj
11-03-2002 10:49 PM


Fred, you're not avoiding this thread, are you? There are numerous questions which you have been asked and have not yet responded to, including those which I raised in message #58.
When can we expect responses?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by wj, posted 11-03-2002 10:49 PM wj 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