Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,212 Year: 5,469/9,624 Month: 494/323 Week: 134/204 Day: 4/4 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discussion on Creation article...
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 4025 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 3 of 95 (320857)
06-12-2006 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by SR71
06-12-2006 11:47 AM


Off the top of my head there is one thing I wanted to comment on.
Platapus are among a class of mammals called monotremes. There are three in fact monotremes, marsupial, and placental mammals. The qualification for being a mammal is simply that you have mammary glands to feed your young. The method of deliving those young is not what defines a mammal.
The other features of a platapus are all easily explained by converget evolution. The features are not so weird that they don't exist in other species although the platapus in particular does LOOK like a weird chimeria type animal. Its "bill" is nothing like the bill of a duck. It is more like overgrown lips. Webbing is a charachteristic of many aquatic creatures including other aquatic mammals. Its electric sense is common in other aquatic predators.
Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SR71, posted 06-12-2006 11:47 AM SR71 has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 4025 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 32 of 95 (331195)
07-12-2006 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by mr_matrix
07-12-2006 3:30 PM


Re: More Fallacies by RAZD
I am calling foul.
Similarly, other marsupial animals (monkeys, squirels bears...etc) behave in strikigly similar manner to that of the placental counterparts despite some physiological differences.
There is no such thing as a marsupial monkey, squirl, or bear and I challange you to show that there is. A Koala "Bear" is not a real bear even though we call it that because it is a generic term.
You are also totally wrong about the tasmanian wolf. It is similar to other wolves only in the same way that all other carnivors are similar to wolves. There are more similarities between tigers and wolves then there are between wolves and the tasmanian wolf.
Using your same argument, dolphins and sharks are more similar because they both swim in the ocean and eat other fish. I mean common there are only very minor differences such as how they breed, breathe, and swim.
Tasmanian wolves breed and raise their children fundamentally differently then any placental wolf. This is a HUGE difference. There are also MAJOR anatomical differences between the skull structure of the tasmanian wolf and other wolves. The people who claim similarity are doing so on the basis of 'pointy nose', 'sharp teeth', 'eats meat'. If you need to reduce taxonomy to a game of "Which one is not like the other" then please take your argument out of science and into Sesame Street where it belongs.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by mr_matrix, posted 07-12-2006 3:30 PM mr_matrix has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024