|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Birds and Reptiles | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4399 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Indeed as a poster said here its a great deal about the classification system. I a;ways find these corrupts interpretations.
For example I know placentals and marsupials are the same creatures with minor local area adaptations. A common theme in the fossil record also of segregating creatures on minor points in union that otherwise they would be in different groups. Likewise i say there is no such divisions as mammals or reptiles. jUst kinds with like details for like needs. The YEC can help here first by saying there are no dinosaur division or types of creatures. All there is IS kinds. What are called dinos are just some kinds of creatures with like details.A t-rex is unrelated to a triceratops. So these dinos with some bird bone likeness are simply creatures with the same needs as birds. Probably they need hollow bones to increase speed as birds need them to decrease weight. Yet its not a trail to identity. Some of these dinos said alike to birds might just be big birds with some details needed by "dinos". Again it comes down to classification systems and not actual biological evidence. Even if bones count as biology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4399 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
No matter. its the same old wrong ideas on classification.
They simply and too quickly got too excited about minor details as reproductive organs while ignoring the great details of fantastic anatomical likeness. they just couldn't imagine what trigger or need or mechanism could affect creatuers all in a certain area at once.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4399 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Nope. in fact marsupials were very common in south America.
It was upon the early migration into these areas and not the later overlapping migrations that tells the tale here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4399 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Your right but i'm still new here and so won't presume to start threads myself.
I was just making a comparison.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4399 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Wounded King writes: They simply and too quickly got too excited about minor details as reproductive organs while ignoring the great details of fantastic anatomical likeness. I see that you don't hold with such new fangled concepts as genetics, which overwhelmingly support the distinct grouping of the marsupials. It seems as if you have rather allowed the anatomical likeness to fool you into thinking it is anatomical identity, something anatomists and paleontologists could quickly disabuse you of. The idea that the only difference between marsupials and placentals is reproductive is patently untrue. TTFN, WK Likeness is from profound results of anatomical arrangement.To ignore the fantastic sameness of looks of creatures claimed unrelated suggests someone is being fooled here . me or you? Genetics stuff is speculation. They only presume connections because of like dna. however if creatures changed in a area like i insist they did they also would have the same DNA.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4399 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
arachnophilia writes: Robert Byers writes: Nope. in fact marsupials were very common in south America.It was upon the early migration into these areas and not the later overlapping migrations that tells the tale here. yes. opossums are from south america originally. but if current location isn't a factor, and just original location, it's not possible to make any sense whatsoever out of your ideology: at some point, all "kinds" bottleneck through a great big boat. they all lived in one area. in other words, if the local adaptation happened after the flood, your ideas are meaningless (as this is relatively identical to evolution). but if the local adaptations happened before the flood, your ideas are meaningless (as current location has no bearing on adaptation). South america had as much diversity in marsupials as Australia once.Just wiki Marsupial history. after the flood as creatures moved to different areas they needed new ways to quickly coloninize the areas. marsupialism simply was a faster way to reproduce and was employed by creatures who went the farthest from the ark. It follows that post flood adaptation was the norm after the flood. Creating great diversity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4399 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Wounded King writes: Genetics stuff is speculation. In what way? We have the genetic data. We have a very well developed understanding of how genetics works. What you basically seem to be saying is that all we know of genetics is trumped by some fairy tale you made up in your head, for some reason this is a less than compelling argument.
They only presume connections because of like dna. As I already pointed out, this is not true there are several morphological features common to the Marsupialia which distinguish them and which have nothing to do with reproduction.
however if creatures changed in a area like i insist they did they also would have the same DNA. Why? There is no rational reason to assume this is the case. This is simply more ad hoc nonsense to try and handwave away the evidence. All you have are some similar morphological traits more than counterbalanced by other dissimilar morphological traits and a whole wealth of genetics. It doesn't seem as if you know much about marsupials other than that some of them kind of look like some placental mammals. TTFN, WK In fact i wrote a essay called "Post flood Marsupial Migration explained" by Robert Byers. Just google.I know my issue. if there was a general change there would be a general same Dna change. DNA just follows parts because everything in nature comes from a common blueprint. cReationists always say this. The like traits are so alike they MUST invoke convergent evolution to explain them. The few traits in common deal with minor points of reproduction. A few other minor details of the brain, teeth, etc. Yet to see this defining the marsupials into a group means to ignore the fantastic number of traits that would simply put them into regular groups of creatures.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4399 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Bluejay writes: Hi, Robert.
Robert Byers writes: Likeness is from profound results of anatomical arrangement. What's so profound about overall appearance? The less attention to you pay to detail, the more different things may look alike. You're essentially arguing that it makes more sense to draw conclusions while squinting one's eyes than it does to draw conclusions after a careful, thorough observation. Observe with ALL attention without preconceived ideas.In fact i suggest one observe on youtube the marsupial wolf and see all the likeness to a regular dog. Moving or still pictures. The appearance of a creature is due to profound anatomical structures. It requires great twists and turns to show to our eyes how things are related to each other. In fact its so important they must invoke a special concept in evolution to explain it. Convergent evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4399 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Again south america was full of marsupial types .Then there was extinction leaving just a few.
In marsupial reproduction one can move product faster. i think this was more of a big deal in the past and now not being needed simply the remnant of this remains. i seen on tv where a kangaroo can have one fetus stored, ready to develop, one in the body growing and one in the pouch. after the flood to speed up repopulating the earth this mechanism kicked in upon some trigger for creatures going the farthest away from the ark. I don'r mean South American "marsupials" are related to australian ones . marsupialism is just a minor adaptation to regular creatures.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4399 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Did you watch the moving marsupial wolf?
I say its just a wolf with a few minor details of difference. The same details of all the creatures in the area. There are marsupial lions, moles, rats, tapirs, bears and so on. To have something look like something else requires fantastic conformity of thousands of twists and turns of anatomy. The classification system has simply been incompetent and likewise for many orders of creatures in the fossil record.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4399 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Boof writes: Robert Byers writes: In fact i wrote a essay called "Post flood Marsupial Migration explained" by Robert Byers. Just google.I know my issue. ... The like traits are so alike they MUST invoke convergent evolution to explain them. The few traits in common deal with minor points of reproduction. A few other minor details of the brain, teeth, etc. Yet to see this defining the marsupials into a group means to ignore the fantastic number of traits that would simply put them into regular groups of creatures. I read your essay Robert, with some difficulty. You seem to insinuate in it, and in your posts on this thread, that the marsupials in Australia are all just minor modifications of some 'kinds' of ‘similar shaped’ placental mammals. But I note you seem to focus your comments on marsupials with the most similar traits to extant placental mammals (eg marsupial moles, thylacine, etc). Just for laughs I'd be interested to know what 'kinds' of placental mammals you think that kangaroos, platypus, possums, wombats and koalas all belong with. Making lists doesn't matter. The creatures that are alike tell the tale. anyways the creatures in australia would just be the same with creatures everywhere filling the post flood planet at that time. tHe fossil record is full of creatures that have gone extinct all over the planet since the biblical flood by this creationist reckoning. Australia is a window into the whole world at that time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4399 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Admin writes: Hi Robert, This isn't the right thread for a discussion on marsupials. Could you boil down your web article on marsupials into a thread proposal over at Proposed New Topics? Thanks! Agreed but I need time right now.it is off thread.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024