Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Can you do geology and junk the evolution bits ?

Pages: (46) < ... 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 ... >

Badger3k Posts: 861 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2010,10:20    Damn, that is way too stupid to address.  Bobby, forget your meds?  You can't even be consistent from one post to the next.  Hell, I'm not even sure you're consistent within a post.  You claim that others have done research (thereby saying you haven't, by implication, which is what we asked about), yet provide no evidence for the first (while plenty for the latter).  You say that you want the individual members of the public to decide, but say that the issue is not "in the eyes of the beholder", which it is if we want to rely on what a person sees. Seriously, when all of anatomy & physiology, genetics, geology, physics - to name a few - indicate that wolves are not related to thylacines, and which you deny, it surely is in the eye of the beholder (or to alter Joy's favorite phrase "eye tyrant"?).  First marsupialism is not a major change to a creature.  Now the jaws are nothing alike, but you claim that this is evidence that supports your laughable claims - if you weren't so deluded I'd give you props for brass balls, but in your case it's not chutzpah, it's brain-dead ignoramity. When are you going to respond to my Chimpanzee challenge - I showed far more evidence than you in video format that showed clear relationships between them and human beings.  I assume by your continued silence that you do in fact agree, no? -------------- "Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2010,10:47    Quote (Bjarne @ Feb. 17 2010,03:23) Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 17 2010,10:52) iTS NOT IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER IN THIS CASE. It is. Right next to the cone of cold and the ray of disintegration. I just keep thinking of "lower the cone of silence" from Get Smart. -------------- "[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory "Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

Badger3k Posts: 861 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2010,18:59    Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 17 2010,10:47) Quote (Bjarne @ Feb. 17 2010,03:23) Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 17 2010,10:52) iTS NOT IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER IN THIS CASE. It is. Right next to the cone of cold and the ray of disintegration. I just keep thinking of "lower the cone of silence" from Get Smart. More like the Cone of Idiocy. -------------- "Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2010,19:37    coney island good lord Bubba won't ICR or AIG print your drivel?  do you write letters to the editor?  your stuff needs to be beholden by a wider set of eyes, me thinks.  you could make millions traveling to conferences and charging 5 bucks for a peek into the tent. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Timothy McDougald Posts: 1036 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2010,19:38    Quote WHY should this big mouth be such a enduring point of anatomy while everything else changed? Likewise with other 'marsupial" jaws? It's not a big mouth, it is just a mouth that can open really wide (120 degrees in point of fact). I has to do with the structure of the jaw joint - which is different from that of canines. Why hasn't it changed. I think that is an assumption that would require examining the thylacine fossil record to verify. This bit from the abstract of this paper should help: Quote We conclude that relative prey size may have been comparable where both species acted as solitary predators, but that the dingo is better adapted to withstand the high extrinsic loads likely to accompany social hunting of relatively large prey. It is probable that there was considerable ecological overlap. As a large mammalian hypercarnivore adapted to taking small-medium sized prey, the thylacine may have been particularly vulnerable to disturbance. The dingo (Canis lupus dingo) as others on this thread have mentioned is a subspecies of the grey wolf and helped the thylacine go extinct. Which is kind of odd if they are the same species. Quote Posters here are missing the claim that evolution makes to explain convergent evolution results. Niche by selection/mutation is acting upon creatures and so profoundly that a likeness in form with unrelated creatures is taking place. Therefore the likeness is not superficial or a trite resemblance but as profound as the reason for its likeness looking that way. A marsupial wolf looks like a wolf for the same reasons a wolf looks like a wolf. Both are the producr of like niche. Not our wolves are the real deal and the marsupial one a bad copy. I'm not really sure what all that means but if you are saying that evolutionist think that wolves and marsupials have been acted on by selection as they adapt to roughly similar niches and consequently have some similarity in traits then yes that is exactly what we think. Quote I really do not see a good case can be made, by the picturesm that marsupials are related biologically. Yet this is exactly what you are arguing for in the case of canine and marsupial wolves. Evolutionists argue that all marsupials are related to each other to the exclusion of other groups on the basis of the anatomy of skeletal and soft tissue traits. So, although you claim that beauty is not in the eye of the beholder you have offered us nothing in the way of anatomy that would support your point - rather you just keep asserting that some superficial resemblance between the two means they are the same. I wonder why the thylacine has different limb proportions than the wolf does? -------------- Church burning ebola boy FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me. PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

She-devil Posts: 3 Joined: Feb. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2010,21:58    Hi i'm new here. I'm a biology major and minoring in geology. (my passion is paleontology) and I just want to mention how I too am baffled by how many biology AND geology majors are creationists and IDists. Its just wierd to me. hello

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2010,22:03    Quote (She-devil @ Feb. 17 2010,22:58) Hi i'm new here. I'm a biology major and minoring in geology. (my passion is paleontology) and I just want to mention how I too am baffled by how many biology AND geology majors are creationists and IDists. Its just wierd to me. hello  :) Hi! That really is bizarre, when it happens. I wonder how many of them are still creationists when they graduate, though. In my limited experience, I've bumped into exactly one creationist in any science class at my school, and she wasn't a biology major. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Timothy McDougald Posts: 1036 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2010,22:03    Hi, Welcome! ETA: We had one in the anthro dept but didn't know it till afterwards - at least us students didn't. -------------- Church burning ebola boy FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me. PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

She-devil Posts: 3 Joined: Feb. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2010,22:13    my bio professor assigned us a tutor (mandatory), and when I went to him he spouted ID and said that evolution goes backwards and totally randomly, etc (using whales "returning" to the ocean as an example) . I refuse to get bio tutoring from someone who doesn't even believe what they are suppposed to be teaching. And I had an english 101 prefessor who said that evolution asserts that when your car gets older it gets better, not worse :O

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,00:18    Quote (She-devil @ Feb. 17 2010,20:13) my bio professor assigned us a tutor (mandatory), and when I went to him he spouted ID and said that evolution goes backwards and totally randomly, etc (using whales "returning" to the ocean as an example) . I refuse to get bio tutoring from someone who doesn't even believe what they are suppposed to be teaching. And I had an english 101 prefessor who said that evolution asserts that when your car gets older it gets better, not worse :O Does your prof know your tutor is a waste of space in the department? Oh, and welcome! (Ex-arts major layman/dabbler here, from the land of the winter Olympics.) -------------- "[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory "Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

ppb Posts: 325 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,08:07    Quote (She-devil @ Feb. 17 2010,23:13) my bio professor assigned us a tutor (mandatory), and when I went to him he spouted ID and said that evolution goes backwards and totally randomly, etc (using whales "returning" to the ocean as an example) . I refuse to get bio tutoring from someone who doesn't even believe what they are suppposed to be teaching. And I had an english 101 prefessor who said that evolution asserts that when your car gets older it gets better, not worse :O When I got my Bachelors degree in Biology from a state university, one of my Biology professors was actually a YEC.  He came to it late in life, I gathered, after going from a mild mannered Methodist to a rolling in the aisles Assembly of God pentecostal.   He was near retirement and relegated to teaching microbiology lab.  He didn't talk about creationism in class, but talked with students outside the classroom.  I got my first exposure to creationism from him.  He told me that biologists date fossils from the rocks they are found in, and geologists date rocks by the fossils found in them.  Circular reasoning!!! Even as a freshman biology student I knew it was crap. -------------- "[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd." - Richard P. Feynman

Dr.GH Posts: 2333 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,10:59    Quote (She-devil @ Feb. 17 2010,19:58) Hi i'm new here. I'm a biology major and minoring in geology. (my passion is paleontology) and I just want to mention how I too am baffled by how many biology AND geology majors are creationists and IDists. Its just wierd to me. hello  :) Howdy, I had a colleague, Paul Langenwalter, who has a masters from Cal State University Fullerton, is a certified paleontologist, and a creationist. He is also an ultra-conservative even on the Orange County scale of right-wing nuttery. What this means to his scientific work is that he is a radical "splitter" who sees in tiny variations of morphology major differences in taxonomy. -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

Robert Byers Posts: 160 Joined: Nov. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2010,02:17    Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 17 2010,19:38) m Quote WHY should this big mouth be such a enduring point of anatomy while everything else changed? Likewise with other 'marsupial" jaws? It's not a big mouth, it is just a mouth that can open really wide (120 degrees in point of fact). I has to do with the structure of the jaw joint - which is different from that of canines. Why hasn't it changed. I think that is an assumption that would require examining the thylacine fossil record to verify. This bit from the abstract of this paper should help: Quote We conclude that relative prey size may have been comparable where both species acted as solitary predators, but that the dingo is better adapted to withstand the high extrinsic loads likely to accompany social hunting of relatively large prey. It is probable that there was considerable ecological overlap. As a large mammalian hypercarnivore adapted to taking small-medium sized prey, the thylacine may have been particularly vulnerable to disturbance. The dingo (Canis lupus dingo) as others on this thread have mentioned is a subspecies of the grey wolf and helped the thylacine go extinct. Which is kind of odd if they are the same species. Quote Posters here are missing the claim that evolution makes to explain convergent evolution results. Niche by selection/mutation is acting upon creatures and so profoundly that a likeness in form with unrelated creatures is taking place. Therefore the likeness is not superficial or a trite resemblance but as profound as the reason for its likeness looking that way. A marsupial wolf looks like a wolf for the same reasons a wolf looks like a wolf. Both are the producr of like niche. Not our wolves are the real deal and the marsupial one a bad copy. I'm not really sure what all that means but if you are saying that evolutionist think that wolves and marsupials have been acted on by selection as they adapt to roughly similar niches and consequently have some similarity in traits then yes that is exactly what we think. Quote I really do not see a good case can be made, by the picturesm that marsupials are related biologically. Yet this is exactly what you are arguing for in the case of canine and marsupial wolves. Evolutionists argue that all marsupials are related to each other to the exclusion of other groups on the basis of the anatomy of skeletal and soft tissue traits. So, although you claim that beauty is not in the eye of the beholder you have offered us nothing in the way of anatomy that would support your point - rather you just keep asserting that some superficial resemblance between the two means they are the same. I wonder why the thylacine has different limb proportions than the wolf does? many living wolves have different limb equations. There are wolves in s america with long legs and elsewhere have shorter legs. limb details are trivial details. yet the shape of the leg from top to ground is the same as a wolf leg largely. Thats the point that matters. Workers in these areas do not classify marsupials together from anatomy but rather from a few details and a general presumption that these few details trump the great number of details otherwise.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2010,02:49    Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 19 2010,02:17) Workers in these areas do not classify marsupials together from anatomy but rather from a few details and a general presumption that these few details trump the great number of details otherwise. When will you be publishing your paper correcting the errors of workers in these areas? Where are you intending to submit it? -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Quack Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2010,04:12    Robert, Quote Workers in these areas do not classify marsupials together from anatomy but rather from a few details and a general presumption that these few details trump the great number of details otherwise. Is superficial similarity all that counts? What about dogs? Are all dogs dogs? What makes a dog a dog? Do you say a Bulldog and a Chihuahua both are dogs? Can you describe your classification system? What methods do you use to determine "sameness"? How do you define sameness? What is the purpose of your classification? Is it useful for anything? You have not answered some very relevant questions we have asked? Why don't you answer them before posting more of the same idiotic nonsense again and again? -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2010,13:49    I don't know if I can handle reading through all of Rob's posts. Did he ever answer the question about whether Kylie has a pouch or not and why or why not? -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Timothy McDougald Posts: 1036 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2010,18:51    Quote Workers in these areas do not classify marsupials together from anatomy but rather from a few details and a general presumption that these few details trump the great number of details otherwise. This is 100% wrong. Here are two examples. The authors of this study looked at 230 characters divided into 545 character states, as well as 3 nuclear and 5 mitochondrial genes in 31 different taxa. This study looked at the entire mitochondrial genome. Others can be found. In reality large data sets spanning hundreds of traits and large numbers of species are the rule. As far as limb proportions go, the point of that question was not about phylogeny. ETA: To fix a typo. ETA again to say that the mitochondrial genome looked at was that of the thylacine. -------------- Church burning ebola boy FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me. PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

didymos Posts: 1828 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2010,21:05    Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 19 2010,11:49) I don't know if I can handle reading through all of Rob's posts. Did he ever answer the question about whether Kylie has a pouch or not and why or why not? Just read one, then just skim for any especially awesome new stupidity. Works pretty well since he mostly just says the same moronic crap over and over. -------------- I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

Quack Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2010,04:19    I believe Robert has made it clear that phylogeny is irrelevant, DNA is just another of those minor details we need not bother with. I believe I've tried that route but he just ignore it. It looks as there is no thinking intellect at the other end, it seems more like some funny computer program making up replies. Computers can make poetry, Rob's prose replies look very similar. -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

Badger3k Posts: 861 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2010,11:00    Quote (Quack @ Feb. 20 2010,04:19) I believe Robert has made it clear that phylogeny is irrelevant, DNA is just another of those minor details we need not bother with. I believe I've tried that route but he just ignore it. It looks as there is no thinking intellect at the other end, it seems more like some funny computer program making up replies. Computers can make poetry, Rob's prose replies look very similar. Even anatomy and physiology are irrelevant once you get beyond "it looks similar if I squint hard enough." -------------- "Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2010,11:28    I'm wondering if placentals evolved from something we'd call a marsupial, or if marsupials and placentals each evolved separately from monotremes (egg layers)? Either way, placentals are a separate branch, and any marsupial you name is equidistant from all orders of placentals - not related to one of them in particular over the others. (Though of course they are all mammals, and all of them share the stuff that's shared by all mammals - and that's what causes the similarities that Byer's likes to harp on.) Henry

Timothy McDougald Posts: 1036 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2010,13:59    Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 20 2010,11:28) I'm wondering if placentals evolved from something we'd call a marsupial, or if marsupials and placentals each evolved separately from monotremes (egg layers)? Either way, placentals are a separate branch, and any marsupial you name is equidistant from all orders of placentals - not related to one of them in particular over the others. (Though of course they are all mammals, and all of them share the stuff that's shared by all mammals - and that's what causes the similarities that Byer's likes to harp on.) Henry This is an interesting article on that issue -------------- Church burning ebola boy FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me. PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2010,16:39    Yep, that's interesting. That article shows bats and tree shrews as more distant from primates than does the tree shown in http://tolweb.org/Eutheria/15997 but otherwise they agree as far as I can tell.

moropus Posts: 1 Joined: Feb. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2010,20:56    Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 20 2010,13:59) Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 20 2010,11:28) I'm wondering if placentals evolved from something we'd call a marsupial, or if marsupials and placentals each evolved separately from monotremes (egg layers)? Either way, placentals are a separate branch, and any marsupial you name is equidistant from all orders of placentals - not related to one of them in particular over the others. (Though of course they are all mammals, and all of them share the stuff that's shared by all mammals - and that's what causes the similarities that Byer's likes to harp on.) Henry This is an interesting article on that issue Innaresting article indeed, but somewhat dated (2001). In light of the authors' remarks on mitochondrial DNA: The value and accuracy of decades of morphological study have been discounted recently by mitochondrial DNA inference, which has reinvigorated Gregory’s claim that monotremes are highly-derived marsupials (Gregory 1947; Janke et al. 1997; Penny et al. 1999). I wonder if more recent studies have helped to resolve the issue? BTW I'm new to this board. Nice to meet ya!

Dr.GH Posts: 2333 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,01:26    Howdy -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

Timothy McDougald Posts: 1036 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,09:14    Quote (moropus @ Feb. 20 2010,20:56) Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 20 2010,13:59)   Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 20 2010,11:28) I'm wondering if placentals evolved from something we'd call a marsupial, or if marsupials and placentals each evolved separately from monotremes (egg layers)? Either way, placentals are a separate branch, and any marsupial you name is equidistant from all orders of placentals - not related to one of them in particular over the others. (Though of course they are all mammals, and all of them share the stuff that's shared by all mammals - and that's what causes the similarities that Byer's likes to harp on.) Henry This is an interesting article on that issue Innaresting article indeed, but somewhat dated (2001). In light of the authors' remarks on mitochondrial DNA: The value and accuracy of decades of morphological study have been discounted recently by mitochondrial DNA inference, which has reinvigorated Gregory’s claim that monotremes are highly-derived marsupials (Gregory 1947; Janke et al. 1997; Penny et al. 1999). I wonder if more recent studies have helped to resolve the issue? BTW I'm new to this board. Nice to meet ya! They may have, but that is the most recent paper I have on the subject in my files. -------------- Church burning ebola boy FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me. PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,10:16    That Killian et al. paper was cited in this more recent pub: Title: Confirming the phylogeny of mammals by use of large comparative sequence data sets Author(s): Prasad AB, Allard MW, Green ED Source: MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION   Volume: 25   Issue: 9   Pages: 1795-1808   Published: SEP 2008 They use the region around the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CTFR) and come up with a pretty similar phylogeny, at least as far as my non-expert eye can ascertain. If you want a copy of this in PDF format, send me a personal message here, including your email address, and I'll be happy to send it along. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

Robert Byers Posts: 160 Joined: Nov. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,03:18    Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 19 2010,18:51) Quote Workers in these areas do not classify marsupials together from anatomy but rather from a few details and a general presumption that these few details trump the great number of details otherwise. This is 100% wrong. Here are two examples. The authors of this study looked at 230 characters divided into 545 character states, as well as 3 nuclear and 5 mitochondrial genes in 31 different taxa. This study looked at the entire mitochondrial genome. Others can be found. In reality large data sets spanning hundreds of traits and large numbers of species are the rule. As far as limb proportions go, the point of that question was not about phylogeny. ETA: To fix a typo. ETA again to say that the mitochondrial genome looked at was that of the thylacine. I read it and note a few points to my gain. They make statements like "marsupial systematics" are complex and "many contradictory hypothesis". Challenge etc. AMEN. This is because their presumptions and conclusions are wrong and have no enduring value. Theyclaim in marsupials that points evolved independently and how plasticity is also invoked. This makes my case how details about marsupials are not relevant to a original one and then despite evolution creativity yet still keeping a few common details from which their are all defined. Bingo. They make a point about these "peramelions" being unique in having a different kind of placenta-like thing from other marsupials. Indeed they state its "similar to living eutherians in this reproductive trait" Well I would say its simply of no relevance in defining relationships based on any reproductive trait.  These traits did not evolve differently but rather were slight variations on a general area adaption to a stress to increase reproduction. Anyways you make a point about many points that are alike between marsupials. If you break it up into hundreds of points then likewise thousands or more points are similar between marsupials and placentals. The listing of points on creatures is great indeed. this makes my case that like form demands thousands of points of likeness and is not superficial in any context.

Robert Byers Posts: 160 Joined: Nov. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,03:25    Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 20 2010,11:28) I'm wondering if placentals evolved from something we'd call a marsupial, or if marsupials and placentals each evolved separately from monotremes (egg layers)? Either way, placentals are a separate branch, and any marsupial you name is equidistant from all orders of placentals - not related to one of them in particular over the others. (Though of course they are all mammals, and all of them share the stuff that's shared by all mammals - and that's what causes the similarities that Byer's likes to harp on.) Henry Well I say there is no mammal division. Creatures just have some like details because of like needs and limited options in nature. Monotremes just show a more accurate orbit here that anything can have anything if it needs it. There are snakes that give birth by eggs or live. Not a big defining point in understanding they are snakes. The classification system done by the few workers has just been plain wrong. Nature simply changes creatures a little to allow survival and not a lot to recreate likeness in unrelated critters.

Robert Byers Posts: 160 Joined: Nov. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,03:40    Quote (moropus @ Feb. 20 2010,20:56) Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 20 2010,13:59)   Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 20 2010,11:28) I'm wondering if placentals evolved from something we'd call a marsupial, or if marsupials and placentals each evolved separately from monotremes (egg layers)? Either way, placentals are a separate branch, and any marsupial you name is equidistant from all orders of placentals - not related to one of them in particular over the others. (Though of course they are all mammals, and all of them share the stuff that's shared by all mammals - and that's what causes the similarities that Byer's likes to harp on.) Henry This is an interesting article on that issue Innaresting article indeed, but somewhat dated (2001). In light of the authors' remarks on mitochondrial DNA: The value and accuracy of decades of morphological study have been discounted recently by mitochondrial DNA inference, which has reinvigorated Gregory’s claim that monotremes are highly-derived marsupials (Gregory 1947; Janke et al. 1997; Penny et al. 1999). I wonder if more recent studies have helped to resolve the issue? BTW I'm new to this board. Nice to meet ya! Welcome to the search for truth. Nope. "the value and accuracy of decades of morphological study..." have not been discounted by dna dreams. It is discounted by creationists like me based on morphology, reason, and biblical boundaries. Likewise Dna concepts also are shown, though not the original goal, to be wrongly interpretated. Dna is not a trail of heritage but only shows what one sees. If there is a like part or part/concept then there is a like dna score. So placentals changing instantly into marsupial modes will all have the same dna on these points of marsupialism. Anatomical study is a better and worthy trail for biological relationships despite errors. Th errors are not from dna studies but better study of morphology. I wrote an essay called called "Post Flood Marsupial migration Explained" by Robert Byers. Just google. I show how same shaped creatures must be seen as the same creatures. Marsupials are a case in point. Don't throw the baby out with bath water is a classic concept in research on any subject.

Pages: (46) < ... 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard