Joined: Feb. 2008
|Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 15 2009,01:36)|
I propose my ideas on marsupials etc being placentals based on living and fossil evidence.
You again confuse assertion with evidence. You haven't presented a your "theory" sufficient specificity to define what evidence would support it, never mind actually presenting such evidence. Your "theory" remains the bald assertions that
1) They look the same
2) This alleged sameness is more important than other quantifiable, highly successful means of determining relatedness.
Note that #1 is simply wrong unless you are extremely selective about which traits you look at, yet you have provided no justification for this selectivity.
|I don't need to provide mechanism, except a few thoughts, to make a solid assertion.|
You're problem isn't just the absence of a mechanism, it's the absence of any room for a plausible mechanism that doesn't contradict a mountain of well established data. It would be one thing if we had absolutely no idea about things like genetics and mutation rates and developmental biology and so on. 150 years ago, Darwin didn't have a mechanism for traits being passed to the next generation, but he had pretty good evidence that it happened. Today, we know those mechanisms in exquisite detail, and they don't leave any room for your bullshit "theory".