Willowtree's Scientific Evidence against Evolution

Ok, The Thylicine is also known as the Tasmanian wolf. If the Thylicine was a product of convergent evolution how could this sample have ever been found or preserved? I would think something like this would not exist if it was a product of convergent evolution. ------------------
The Elder[This message has been edited by The Elder, 12-18-2003]

That is not a difference really.

bump[This message has been edited by The Elder, 12-18-2003]

The Thylacine should be referd to as the "Thylacine", not the Tasmanian Tiger/Tasmanian Wolf, that is what I am trying to point out.------------------
The Elder[This message has been edited by The Elder, 12-20-2003]

It seems to me that the Thylacine has such a phenotypic makeup wolf/tiger, because of herditary descendent.------------------
The Elder[This message has been edited by The Elder, 12-20-2003]

Read other posts, No comment on your entire post because it seems of little importence.------------------
The Elder

I am saying that whatever the "Thylacines genealogy dictates is that which it's phenotypic make-up accumelates too. So if the Thylacine is realed to wolf then so be it, and if it be related to marsupial then so be it, I dont really care, honestly. Whatever the Thylacines genealogy dictates is that which the monster appears to be, But I will say that the monster does not look like a "TIGER/CAT" the monster looks like a "Dog/Wolf". Convergent evolution is adaptation in the life of the creature, thus, convergent evolution contradicts what I am saying because convergent evolution is not herditary changes over millions of years it is herditary changes according to habitat in the life of the creature. I dont know why I have too express my self, my writing is self explainable. The skulls are different yes, but they are not that different, I am a person who does not know the exact genealogy of the Thylacine I will admit and as such you can understand that the difference between those could be as simple as one or maybe two different ancestors that is all, but if the chain is tremendously different I suggest you post the chain so I may see it. Understood before I started posting. I suggest you stop having so much faith in evolution and see if perhaps it is wrong before you assume it is right and allow every fable to enter your ear. No. a Common ancestor at somepoint, perhaps genetic drift occured/mutation occured something along those lines. That is if indeed mutation can lead to such a change, which is un-proven. I believe I have, if I have not then translate what you are looking for more specifically.------------------
The Elder[This message has been edited by The Elder, 12-20-2003]

"CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG PLEASE"My understanding of convergent evolution is in the lifetime of the species which is subject to "convergent-e" the species changes according to adaptation, which means, the fetus cannot look like it appears after adaptation. The fetus I posted looks the same, except, not fully grown of course. If you are telling me that the full grown Thylacine is a product of convergent evolution because it has stripes well, I dont think that is convergent evolution. Already understood.------------------
The Elder

First, sorry for being away, I want to answer my posts before I review the rest of the thread and if their is anything I think I need to bring up, I will bring it up, if I dont find anything I wont respond at all and I will allow the thread to move on. Nay. Shrug. Correct.My problem is I am a disbeliver in acquired characteristics and I can see the apperence of the "fetus" and the "full grown product" of a Thylacine are not that much different. So the question that I would ask when I see that the FETUS and the FULL GROWN PRODUCT of the Thylacine are so alike is: What where the changes that where to have happend with convergent evolution? The only changes I can see, are stripes.So,The main problem is that, understanding that acquired characteristics are obsolete, how would the acquired characteristical changes be passed down to the Thylacine Fetus? Which is what would have to have happend in order for the "Thylacine FETUS" to be so similiar to the "Full Grown Thylacine Body", which is suppost to be a product of convergent evolution/adaptation which are acquired characteristics.------------------
The Elder[This message has been edited by The Elder, 12-26-2003]

Mark24, So you are saying that WRT evolution that convergent evolution can be a product of genetics which where activated because of the enviorment? I am saying that the FETUS of a Thylacine does not look any different then the full grown Thylacine (except the stripes),SO, what exactly developed because of adaptation or convergent evolution? Correct WRT evolutionism. Correct WRT evolutionuism.Of course that does not mean that the Thylacine is a product of convergent evolution or evolution at all but just another species. But of course, I assume that there is fossil record, and dna, too support the development of a Thylacine according to evolution?------------------
The Elder[This message has been edited by The Elder, 12-26-2003]

Are you a expert zoologist? If you are not why are you so sure that you are correct in the differences? No I assume that you believe much in evolution rather then giving anybody who would be considered a creationist a chance just because they are a creationist, you also asked me what my standpoint is, probably because you wanted to attack my personal beliefs, luckaly I dont care about death so I have no bias opinion and I can see the differences without trying to defend my belief. Where? Where? 1.)Mutation is not proven to lead to more information
2.)The fossil record is incomplete, no assumption or observation should have ever been started.
3.)Phylogenies are based on similarities and are unproven to lead to relatedness.
4.)The theory of evolution is a theory, meaning, it is theoretical.------------------
The Elder

Ok, Good, please represent your self with factual proof, none of this theoretical crap.------------------
The Elder

You are missing the point. a metaphore: the identicalness is microscopic to people who are not expert zoologists Differences/similarites and such. The attack: When you stand back and watch a evo vs a creatio you can see the different attacks each take on the other, usally this results in a thread with a list of opinions and no facts. milton's statments: Duh. I just wanted to know what you where refering too. I agree that the Thylacine phenotypic makeup is because of genetics. Best shot? my best shot kills the theoretical evolution. The theory of evolution needs more mechinisms to be successful.------------------
The Elder

Ok, You missunderstand me still, Pointless to speak with you, you need to practice comprehension, maybe that is why you are such a strong evolutionist and are ignorant as to how it is a belief.(added by edit) Leaving thread for a while be back later------------------
The Elder[This message has been edited by The Elder, 12-26-2003]