Marsupial evolution

Aren't dogs and wolves the same species essentially? They can interbreed. Seems a bit suspect then to claim because dogs and wolves are more similar than a marsupial wolf, that somehow a real point is being made?Aren't members of the same species or at least so close they can breed together suppossed to be more similar than a different species altogether?

You are picking and choosing what to compare. Of course, the reproductive system is different as it is for all Marsupials compared to placentals. The point is everything BUT the reproductive system.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Is it your impression I was arguing that ALL of the other traits are identical?Hmmm...

The point is refers to your post and the posts going back to arach's original post I responded to. You tried to say that the differences outweighed the similarities, right? My point is that you were cherry-picking what to compare. Furthermore, you included the reproductive differences which is absurd. Of course, there are reproductive differences. The point (Arach's point and your's presumably since you were defending it) is to compare everything BUT the reproductive differences.You are cherry-picking some differences and not making a comprehensive analysis.

Every trait not mentioned....all those but the few characteristics mentioned (cherry-picked) here by evos. You mean like reading a complaint about how another creationist/IDer is treated and realizing who the people are that are involved? Where have I claimed a "comprehensive analysis"? In fact, my whole point is you cannot list a few characteristics and then claim based on those few characteristics that marsupials or placentals are more alike with each other than their marsupial or placental pairs(minus the reproductive system).How could you have interpreted making this point as not reading what others have posted? Serious question because you asked me to respond and did so with charges of not reading in a highly insulting manner which would seem to be a rules-violation all on it's own.All I have asked for is that if evos are going to make claims on this thread, they provide a comprehensive analysis for such a claim.Is it now wrong to ask for evidence from evos too?Furthermore, my original recent post on this thread was just pointing out that comparing dogs and wolves, arguably the same species, to make a point about, say, the similarity of dogs and mice or some other placental is fallacious.Did I make a correct point there or not? In fact, I read what was posted and correctly pointed out the error. Perhaps that's why you are so angry?Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

But one of those examples of similar traits involve comparing subspecies of Placentals with a different species of Marsupials.....not exactly a valid comparison, is it? No, because I am not making a claim on this thread as you surmise. I have just correctly and merely pointed out that the evidence offered so far is not comprehensive and as with the dog and wolf comparison, faulty. I think looking at the data itself is very important. Just focussing on a few traits is not sufficient if you are going to make the claim that all placentals are more similar to one another than any one of them to marsupials (minus the reproductive system of course). That is a claim by evos here but it has not been adequately supported.Demanding I take the opposite position and disprove the evo claim with the idea presumably that the evo position is thus substantiated strikes me as odd. Isn't it the case that the one making the claim should substantiate it? Edited by randman, : No reason given.

What we need are the facts. Just present a comprehensive analysis to back up your claim. There should be some paper verifying this claim by evos, right?Let's see it. Or is this just something that "must be true." Addtionally, you've made a lot of statements without backing them up. You say, for example: But you list no facts except the classifications by evos which in part is based on the reproductive system but the claim is absent the reproductive system, placentals are more similar than marsupials, period. I am not sure at all that this is the case, nor that any studies have been conducted to verify that claim. You offer no real comprehensive data or even much data at all.Additionally, if the claim is true, why not compare wolves and human beings with the thylacine. or humans beings and mice with marsupial mice. Let's really challenge this concept and see if it holds true.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Real science is about vigorously challenging theories and concepts to see if they hold true. It seems that suggesting that is necessary bothers you here.Let's see if, for example, human beings and placental mice are indeed more similar than marsupial and placental mice, or any of these claims hold true. Just presenting a few traits and comparing them, cherry-picking the data, is not vigorously testing the concept.You are not wedded to any particular outcome, are you?Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Ok, provide links to the specific papers in the scientific literature then.

So your recommendation is to go to a museum to prove your point? All I am asking is for is a link to the specific scientific papers that do a comprehensive study to substantiate your point.Are you unable to provide that?In terms of your comments, isn't it true that one reason marsupials and placentals are classified together is based on their reproductive system. You don't need to go to a museum to understand that, but that hardly substantiates your claims, does it?You are suggesting, right, that everything considered besides the reproductive system shows that all placentals are more similar than any placental is to a marsupial. I don't think you can show that and doubt it is true, but regardless know of no papers or research comprehensively substantiating that claim. Do you? You are welcome to provide a link to a paper showing that.Do you have such evidence for your stance?Btw, the link you provided to arachnophilia shows a comparison between a placental wolf and a dog with a marsupial wolf. Now, aren't wolves and dogs essentially the same species, at least in the sense they can and do successfully interbreed and produce fertile offspring? Seems a bit flawed to compare differences in subspecies with differences in species to make your point.In terms of bears and wolves, your link is not a comprehensive analysis but just examines a few traits. As such, it doesn't substantiate your point very well.Also, your links really are somewhat bare links. Can you quote the parts and point the specifics out that you think substantiate your claims?

see my later postEdited by randman, : No reason given.

You guys pick subspecies and species more similar within placentals to compare with a marsupial. Let's look at a wider range to test your claims, shall we.How many teeth are in this critter? http://www.sensesofwildness.com/africa/2_4/04_42.HTMHow many in some marsupials?The fact is you are going to have to take a comprehensive look at all of the features of marsupial and placental pairs to substantiate the claim that all placentals are more similar than their marsupial pair. For example, do you really believe a marsupial wolf is less similar to a placental wolf than a placental wolf is to a human being?Humans have 2 legs. Both placental and marsupials have 4. Marsupial and placental wolves skulls are much more similar than they are to a human's skull. Their anatomy and behaviour are more similar. The only area they are primarily less similar is their reproductive system.Your claim is a human being is more similar to a wolf than a wolf is to a marsupial wolf. I doubt that and list a few items above. Please show something more than small differences in molars or items such as that.Do you really think a human skull is more similar, for example, to a red fox than to a red foxes skull is to a marsupial wolf?

You are still not taking a comprehensive look. You are looking at only a few traits, and that's not sufficient. You and many evos prefer to trumpet dentition. However, that's cherry-picking the evidence. You are not looking at all the evidence, nor does it even make that much sense.Why would convergent evolution produce so many similar traits and yet not similar dentition?Doesn't make sense. If something like the mouse body-design, traits, etc,...or wolves/dogs can be so similarly reproduced because, according to evos, there is such a strong environmental factor, then shouldn't this also produce similar dentition?When you peel away the simplistic analysis and really look at this, the adaptionist position really falls apart. If mutations are random, there is no reason for the same niches to be reproduced and the same patterns. It's not like there is only one set of niches that can be produced by the environment because the environment in a great way includes the animals and plants that are there. The idea the same animal forms should be produced is ludicrous on the face of it.Moreover, there is no evidence that differences and similarities in dention should be the result of common ancestry. In fact, I suspect it is more likely that the differences relate to the different reproductive processes. Keep in mind organisms are not simply a bunch of parts put together but work within themselves individually in a dynamic process.

So you admit the few traits you have mentioned are cherry-picking and not comprehensive. What you don't say is that the taxonomists and classifications being done by evos assume universal common descent and so use an assumption as a large basis for what they are doing.Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. It's similar to just saying that evos believe in evolution and so it must be true. Wrong. Mutations are part of the environment because the organisms which contain mutations are part of the environment. Niches are not simply the result of the inorganic environment but the bio-environment, which is why things like invasive species can have such an impact. Selection pressures are not simply produced via the inorganic environment. Take away a predator, for example, and keep the land the same, and you will see changes in the animals there due to their bio-environment changing. Introduce a disease as a result of it's virus or bacteria mutating and becoming more lethal and keep the land the same, and you likewise see changes.Frankly, I am surprised you don't already understand this.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

I didn't say perfectly random niches. But there is no reason for near exact duplication of forms in placental and marsupial pairs. Furthermore, they don't even have the same environment. Once again, this is just another untested hypothesis which evos accept as true as if it needs no verification at all. It MUST BE true according to NeoDarwinism and so evos insist it is, but they have done no real studies and means of verifying it.Edited by randman, : No reason given.