Bjarne
Posts: 29
Joined: Dec. 2009
|
| Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 12 2010,04:32) | | Quote (Bjarne @ Jan. 07 2010,08:48) | | Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 07 2010,10:51) | | Quote (Bjarne @ Jan. 05 2010,03:37) | | Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 04 2010,11:48) | | Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 02 2010,10:45) | | Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 02 2010,02:13) | | Quote (afarensis @ Dec. 30 2009,18:51) | | I'm still trying to figure out a couple of things. First, if marsupial wolves and canine wolves are the same thing then why do marsupial wolves share more traits (of both soft and hard tissue) with kangaroos, opossums, and numbats then they do with canine wolves? Second, why do the canine wolves share more traits with, say skunks or aardwolves, than they do kangaroos, opossums, and numbats (and while I'm thinking about it following Robert Byers logic aardwolves should be canines and yet they are placed in the Hyaenidae which in turn are placed in the Feliformia - what's up with that)? |
You make my case.
Marsupial wolves share thousands of points with our wolves. They share a few points with "marsupials".
Thats what it comes down too.
When looking at still/moving pictures of marsupial wolves I see a wolf.
When reading about them I see a dog like creature in most ways like other dogs even down to howling at night.
When evolution looks at the same. They see just howling kangaroos.
Present the evidence to the people and let the voting begin. |
I think you need to go back an reread my comment. I said marsupial wolves share more traits in common with kangaroos. This is based on more that just staring at movies and pictures which only gives information on superficial characters that lack phylogenetic significance (such as coat color). So I ask, what thousands of characters do marsupial wolves and canine wolves share? Better yet, why have all the anatomists and paleontologists missed these thousands of traits? Surely, if they appear in pictures and movies they should show up on an actual examination of the skeleton and soft tissue. Yet when scientists actually look at this material very few of these thousands of alleged traits appear. You want us to take your word over the word of scientists. You have looked at pictures and movies and you feel that somehow this makes your opinion count for more than scientists who have actually examined the material in question. Your picture informed words over those who have measured the bones, traced the origins and insertions of muscles, counted the teeth, examined the brains, and looked at the internal organs.
I also notice that you don't address the question of all the traits canine wolves share with hyenas and felines. |
I don't like the word "scientists" being applied to the few researchers who study fossil marsupials.
Anyways.
In fact there is nothing superficial about anatomy ,
In fact the sameness of marsupial types with placental types etc is so great that a concept called convergent evolution must be invoked to explain it.
This concept makes my case.
They would admit the anatomy is so alike between a marsupial lion and our lions that they say mutation with selection over time because of like niche must be the reason.
In fact only reproductive tendencies and a few points about teeth ot skulls etc separate otherwise same shaped creatures.
The classification here has been on these minor points because they can't imagine how a whole fauna in a area could evolve a like reproductive etc mode.
Yet they try to say niche brought about same looking creatures requiring thousands of points of anatomy and time/selection/mutation.
I say the niche is the area or some reproductive stress need.
I also say its a innate trigger that changes creatures.
This is by the way a common theme in classification about many orders of creatures. Marsupials is just a famous one. |
Wait! According to your speculation, a host of widely varying animals have wandered (and swam) to Australia relatively recently. There they experienced the same selective pressure and evolved the same reproductive system due to this selective pressure?
Am I right about this? |
No.
The migratrions to Australia happened soon after the flood over dry land. Then the land was drowned segregating life.
I see the mechanism as needed back then but not later.
It was probably just to maintain a steady reproduction on the fly. There was a rush to fill the earth quick. Its now in a neutral gear. |
So, except for the swimming part, I did get your idea right?
A host of widely different animals migrated to Australia over some hypothetical landbridge and then they did experience the same kind of reproductive stress, which did lead to the development of a similar feature, the marsupial reproduction system?
This would be nothing, but convergent evolution. You are just trying to disprove, in the loosest sense of the word, convergent evolution with convergent evolution. |
Your somewhat on target. Yes the niche was the stress or area and the origin of a common adaptation instantly.
Its not convergent evolution by way of mutation/selection.
Just quick draw innate triggered adaptation.
I know its new but the evidence forces this conclusion. Evolution doesn't have the evidence or just interpretation of common data.
Of coarse I also have a witness and boundaries from Genesis. |
This is highly exciting, Robert.
Can you please give me the chapter and verse of Genesis in which God magically changed the Bauplan of the Australian mammals?
I am sure it is only because of my faulty Bible translations, that I can't find anything of such a claim in the book of Genesis.
|
