Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,213 Year: 5,470/9,624 Month: 495/323 Week: 135/204 Day: 5/4 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discussion on Creation article...
nwr
Member
Posts: 6444
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 26 of 95 (329465)
07-06-2006 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by mr_matrix
07-06-2006 5:26 PM


Re: More Fantasies by RAZD
I have already posted tis link:
http://www.darwinism-watch.com/darwinist_prop_13.php
It shows you why convergent evolution is more like a fantasy rather than a scientific approach.
The referenced web page seems to consist mostly of bare assertions and appeals to incredulity.
Do you know that when Australia seperated from the rest of the world there were no wolves or many other marsupials at that time, ...
The closest Australia had to wolves were the dingoes, likely brought by the early human settlers. Tasmanian wolves are not true wolves.
The web page you reference tries to claim similarity between wolves and Tasmanian wolves that could not be due to convergence. It shows two pictures of skulls (one a Tasmanian wolf and one a true wolf), and claims that they are too similar to be explained by convergent evolution. However the pictures are too small and too blurry to be able to tell anything much at all.
Here is a web page with a better comparison. The differences are significant enough to rule out a common origin. That leaves convergent evolution as the best explanation.
... so how did Australia come to possess wolves and other marsupials just as the rest of the world?
Wow! Apparently you think that marsupial wolves and true wolves are pretty much the same animals. You really are confused.
Moreover, the human eye and the squid's eye have striking similarity even though there is no evolutionary relation between the two, ...
There are also striking differences.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by mr_matrix, posted 07-06-2006 5:26 PM mr_matrix has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6444
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 33 of 95 (331206)
07-12-2006 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by mr_matrix
07-12-2006 3:30 PM


Re: More Fallacies by RAZD
What evolutionists consider observations of evolution is no more than observing micro changes.
By so stating, you only demonstrate your ignorance about evolution.
There are differences between marsupials and placentals, but there are striking more similarities.
Yet another demonstration of your ignorance.
Similarly, other marsupial animals (monkeys, squirels, bears...etc) behave in strikigly similar manner to that of the placental counterparts despite some physiological differences.
What's a marsupial monkey? I haven't come across those. Are you referring to this creature, which isn't at all similar to a monkey?
And what's a marsupial squirrel? Are you referring to Petaurus norfolcensis, which is not at all similar to a squirrel.
When you refer to marsupial bear, are you talking about the koala? It isn't at all similar to a bear. And it eats only eucalyptus leaves, while most bears are omnivores.
I wonder if this creationist web page is where you are getting your misinformation. I'll quote one comment from the page, because it is so absurd that it is hilarious:
quote:
Unknown to many, there was a marsupial wolf. The Thylacine is more commonly called the Tasmanian Tiger because it had lateral stripes across its back, but the animal was a dog.
You've got to love that matter-of-fact assertion "but the animal was a dog". Only a hopelessly gullible fundie would be so foolish as to fall for such obvious nonsense.

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by nwr, posted 07-12-2006 6:24 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6444
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 34 of 95 (331254)
07-12-2006 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by nwr
07-12-2006 4:38 PM


Addemdum
It seems that some creationist sites are referring to cuscus as a marsupial monkey. This creature is still very different from a monkey.

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by nwr, posted 07-12-2006 4:38 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6444
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 42 of 95 (332466)
07-17-2006 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Jaderis
07-17-2006 6:43 AM


The eggs were most likely deposited somewhere (like many fish eggs are, fish do not carry their eggs until term), ...
Actually, some fish do carry their eggs until term.

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Jaderis, posted 07-17-2006 6:43 AM Jaderis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Jaderis, posted 07-17-2006 6:23 PM nwr has seen this message but 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