Biogeography falsifies the worldwide flood.

quote:

---

DNA is in a primitive state of our understanding right now is my point. And conclusions about it in the future will constantly change ideas about its reliability and it works.

---

This coming from a person who thinks that there are only minor differences between marsupialism and placentalism. Sorry, but you knowledge of biology is much more unreliable than the work of thousands of moleculary biologist over the last 50 years. Think of it this way. If someone came on here who had never read the Bible and claimed that it was all wrong, how would you rank that person's opinion? We are asking the same from you. Before you judge the last 150 years of science as bunk, you might actually want to learn a little about it. The work on DNA in the last 50 years, or more accurately the last 20 years, is astounding. We have sequenced the genomes of numerous mammals and even more bacteria. I will state that there is still much to learn, but all we need for constructing "trees of life" is the sequences themselves. Guess what, we have those sequences. And the best part is, the new sequences that come out on almost a daily basis match evolutionary predictions. Again, what are the predictions on DNA similarity of living species made by the authors of Genesis?

quote:

---

So a marsupial kangaroo and marsupial wolf DNA could be similiar because the reproduction business dominates in the DNA. Even though the Marsupial wolf and our wolf are the same one originally.

---

If they were previously interbreeding then there is no way that large portions of their DNA would be different since those genomes would have been mixing together. Sorry, but this is as far from reality as you can get. Next you will probably state, without evidence I am sure, that reproduction was different in the pre-flood world. Only another ad hoc hypothesis will save you it appears.Secondly, the gene I listed before, cytb, is involved in metabolism, not reproduction. This gene makes cytochrome B, and important enzyme that is found in almost every organism in the world, including bacteria. Why would this gene have to be different for marsupial or placental fetal development? Short answer, absolutely nothing. Again, your arguments are really falling apart. Any claim of "victory" or that your interpretations "make better sense" are ringing hollow.

quote:

---

Yes wolves foxes ,marupial wolves and other wolf kinds in the post flood record are all the dog kind.

---

So one of the 72 kinds is the Dog kind? What are the other kind?

quote:

---

Perhaps one could go further and say dogs and bears are one kind. All that matters is that one kind came off the ark and then we can figure out its present day subkinds

---

Ah, so "kind" is whatever fits your arguemnt? ALl mammals and marsupials are one kind, but dogs are a separate kind, right?Are you COMPLETELY DAFT?

quote:

---

I am aware of the other anatomical connections of marsupials to each other and the differences between them and placentals.
What of it.

---

Well, you claimed that they were all one kind. Are Whales and fish both one kind, merely because they kind of look alike whan you first glance them?

quote:

---

These creatures being similiar in any way is a result of location and evirorment. In the arctic many creatures are white and heavy furred but it is not evidence (anyone says) of ancestry.

---

Before you said that a Tasmanian "wolf" and a placental wolf were one kind because they looked alike. Now you contradict yourself. Were you ZLYING then, or are you LYING now?

quote:

---

Evolutionists are the ones who draw from a mouse in Asia a wolf and from a different mouse entirely in Australia a Marsupial mouse.

---

How so? Please provide evidence for your claim (Nah, I am not holding my breath, as everything you claim is based on your "because I say so" kind of "evidence" with no documentation and no reply when proven either erroneous or outright false).

quote:

---

Creationists accept micro changes though not macro.

---

And "marsupialization" is a micro-change? The generation of many hunders of new species quite unique and diverese is "micro-evolution"?In that case, please define the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution.And for that matter, please define how you use "kind," preferrably by listing as many different kind as you can.

quote:

---

And a wolf is a wolf whether its pouched or not. The first instinct is often the right one. This also to the others on this point.

---

So something that swims is a fish, reagrdless of whether it breathes air or not? What "instinct" are you using here, and hopw do you know it is the right one? Because you say so?

Why are you outright LYING about science?

quote:

---

Again all is not proven on any side but is just accepted as plausible.

---

No, your nonsense is NOT as plausible. All you have to support it is your "because I say so" wild postulations and your "instinct." Wishful thinking is not evidence, even though you seem to believe so. Perhaps your "instinct" told you so? Or do you not worry about bearing false witness, given the dishonest methods of argument you use?

Yes, according to him they are the same KIND. So are bears.see Message 148.There is an open question in Message 153 trying to find out if Pandas are also the same Kind.It will also be interesting to learn if Koalas are also part of the Dog Kind.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

It will also be interesting to learn if Koalas are also part of the Dog Kind.

---

No, they are part of the Teddy Bear kind along with Pandas and various stuffed animals.Randy

quote:

---

And "marsupialization" is a micro-change?

---

Good point, Steen! It appears that our creationist friends are now beginning to fudge the whole "microevolution/macroevolution" distinction. That's what happens when good God-fearing Christians compromise by accepting microevolution to begin with.

Yes, their arguments and reasonings generally are rather lame, aren't they. Trying to invent "evidence" that fit what they at that time see as their conclusion, until it also is disproven, then have to hedge by making up more "evidence." They are so lame.

Good grief, there is actually a web site promoting this nonsense.Marsupial Evolution and Post Flood MigrationTerry on MSN talk origins (yes I went back there, silly me)
Microsoft OneDrive - Access files anywhere. Create docs with free Office Online.brought it up in his attempt to defend biogeography. It seems to be impossilbe to overestimate the ignorance of YECs.Randy

Been away. Again you and others grasp for DNA to save your ideas. Yet DNA is in a early and primitive state. There is noe evidence to persuade that it tells the tale of ancient origins as opposed to telling the story of a common blueprint.
Perhaps my history is wrong but it was not successful in convicting O.J Simpson. Because it is still not understood.

Mr Loudmouth you are not arguing a matter with point/counter point rather you are just claiming a higher authority. You don't prove or show why an opponent should be persuaded.
You say yourself 20 years for real DNA emergence. Yes early and still primitive in understanding what it is. It is not proven it shows ancient ancestry just that all creatures have a common make up. Yes we creationists would say at last it is realized that thier is a common blueprint and a single active creater. The ability to show human/parental relationship is just a special case within DNA. That is all and only that has been proven. I notice you folk on your last legs.

Seems you're not actually back yet. No evidence? What you mean is you don't know anything about the evidence available.Please review and add to:
Genetic evidence of primate evolutionA courtroom is not a scientific laboratory. This is not relevant at all.

I first entered the fray because Randy presented a common critism against creationists that the flood account was comprimised by the Marsupials/Australia situation. And since I have an interest in post flood biogeography well you know the rest.I cam,I saw,I conquoredI have not proven my points. YET i have proven that Marsupial biogeography fits creationists models of the past fine. Watch the equation.I think I've made a Damn good case for the good guys.All of you have withered away with serious arguement. You just ask desperate question after question revealing the poverty of your stand. After all we are all novices.
Also as usual in these circles the weaker side reverts to abuse.
You all constantly accuse me of ignorance and this and that about my ability and motives.
I have never said one negative word about any of you. Nor wish or will. We understand you can't handle our well moored confidence and feel intimidated by us.I claim victory. I claim the kill. Hope all enjoyed and were instructed. My opponents are intellectually wearied and done.If a serious line of arguementation appears then I will respond but otherwise I'm off to fight in the other forums on evcforum.
All the best.

So sorry to see you go. It's a shame you learned nothing at all.