Willowtree's Scientific Evidence against Evolution

I didn't think that this would be avialable when I suggested that it would be good to check. The eventual comparison will be "interesting" in the context of this thread.

Nobody has, that I've noticed, argued that they don't look 'very similar'. This is yet another case of what we have pointed out is called "convergent evolution".However, that is NOT what the quote supplied says:

quote:

---

"The key factor about the evolution of marsupials is that a large number of modern marsupial animals exist which - apart from the pouch and child rearing habits - are identical with placental mammals to an extroardinary degree. This is no mere general similarity of anatomical detail, but an almost perfect duplication of distinctive species like cats, rats, wolves, moles, flying squirrels, anteaters, and others. In addition there are distinctive marsupials which exist only in Australia, such as the koala and the kangaroo.

​

...
When the skulls of the two wolves are placed side by side, it would take an experienced professional zoologist to tell them apart.

---

It is this "almost perfect duplication" that has been shown to be false.The second part of the claim is how unlikely mutations being duplicated is. I agree.However, while it hasn't yet been shown, we predict that the genomes of these so-called "virtually identical" creatures will NOT have the same mutations or even be very similar. We predict that the "wolf" will be closer to a kangaroo than to a timber wolf.I don't have to tell "which is which". What I can do is sort such skulls into two piles, one wolf, one thyacine. They are not so "identical" that even I, very much NOT an expert (a "experienced professional zoologist ") can see the differences.So there are two points being made by the quotes from Milton. One shown to be false. The other which you and WT have continued to ignore. I know that you know the genomes will make a fool out of Milton.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-17-2003]

It is NOT as close as Milton said it is. I can tell the difference. Thank you, thank you, JP. This is exactly the right thing to compare with the wolf thyacine case. Thank you.The wolf and marsupial "wolf" look simlar, NOT identical, due to convergence. If that is true then the genetics will be different. As I said, my prediction is that the thyacine will be closer to a kangaroo than it is to a timber wolf. You have conspicuously avoided commenting on that.If H. Sapians and a chimp are similar as a result of convergent evolution what would be expected for their genomes? They would not be all that similar since, as Milton correctly noted, it is hard to see how independently two different genomes could under go the same mutations.Well, they are very, very similar. Therefore, while convergence is still possible it becomes the less likely reason for the similarities.Again, stop ducking this why don't you, what will the result of a comparison of the marsupial wolf and real wolf genomes be?As for reading his book. So far I'm going on the quotes that your side supplied as supposedly telling evidence for your position. Is there something else you'd like to quote from it that is better? Certainly what you have so far is shot to pieces.The differences maybe in your words "slight", I disagree, they are obvious. They are certainly not "slight" enough to require an expert zoologist to separate the two. The skulls shown are certainly not "virtually identical".However, I suspect that you will never agree to that. I don't have the kind of analytical information that actually can quantify the degree of similarity so we may have to leave that as a matter of opinion.So, let's get back to the genome shall we? I don't know how the two will compare. I don't know if it has been done. Are you willing to stick your neck out and make a prediction?

Are you saying the thylicine (thanks for spelling correction) is "similar" to a wolf/tiger because it is a descendent of a wolf/tiger kind? That the thylicine is a decendent of a wolf or vice versa?As for your "bump" of the "That is not a difference really." post of yours. Could you explain how different or similar you think the skulls are?To catch up we are discussing Milton's "virtually identical" skulls are we not?If you think they are "virtually identical" that it would take an expert zoologist to tell them apart (as Milton suggests) then I suggest you look again.Is your decent comment suggesting that you think they will have a close genetic affinity? That is, of course, a good scientific approach. You have determined a specific test which could distinguish between what Milton is saying and what biologists would say. Could you elaborate on what it is that you are actually saying?

Now you've gone and spoiled the fun!It is much more interesting to make predictions about things from basic principles when you don't know the answer. You've spoiled it!However, it also drives the final nail in what Milton was saying about the probability of mutations. It demonstrates how completely stupid what he had to say is. I guess that's done with and we can move on to the next piece of evidence that someone might want to bring up.------------------
Common sense isn't

You're right, of course. It gets a bit tiresome but I did get something from this.I wouldn't have ever guessed that someone would have been dumb enough to use the thylacine / wolf comparison in this way. It seems I simply can NOT manage to underestimate the thinking processes of guys like Milton. So I've learned something new and, however tiny, that is fun.

Faith? Where did faith or anything to do with evolution enter into it? I just looked at the side by side pictures. That's all, nothing else involved. The statement of Miltons was that they are "virtually indentical" and that it would take an expert zoologist to tell them apart. Well, looking at them (especially from underneath the skull) I can see that they are only similar NOT "virtuall identical".It seems to me to go off on a tangent about faith in evolution when I asked a straight forward question about the skulls is a bit of an evasion.You, it seems, have agreed with me that Milton was wrong in his talk about the probabilities involved in the mutations to create two "virtually identical" animals. His statment makes no sense if there isn't also strong genetic similarities between the two. You've agreed that they may well not be.Your misunderstanding about convergent evolution has already been handled.It seems we have had to go on a long time to show that the snippet taken from Milton is in no way at all "scientific evidence against evolution". Do you have some more?

Well, since you have decided not to defend the quotes you offered as evidence before I presume you won't want to defend the material in the link.Here we mostly pick what particulare pieces we think are the best on a link or give a flavor for what it is saying. You haven't picked anything from your site. I presume that means it's fair for anyone to pick, not the strongest part of it, but the weakest parts.If someone will bother to defend the material in the link then we can discuss it here. If no one wants to maybe it isn't worth bothering with is it?

I've read over your link.It seems the whole arguement comes down to:
I don't see it when I look at it.This seems to me to be a lot like the Milton "virtually identical" skulls game yet again. He says only and expert can tell them apart. I look at them and can tell them apart. I presume his argument would be "I can't".It seems that your source simply can't "connect the dots" they are actually asking for all the fossils for a complete sequence in one place.

quote:

---

Ideally this should be demonstrated in a long sequence, ten or twenty or fifty successive fossil species, showing major generic evolution - but a short sequence would be enough. But this simple relationship is not what is shown in the sequence of the rocks. Nowhere in the world has anyone met this simple evidential criterion with a straightforward fossil sequence from successive strata.

---

An obviously silly requirement and an unnecessary one.What is wrong with some samples from one place and some from another?Again, we go back to: It happened. We see some of the steps. What is wrong from inferring that the other steps were there?One problem with the view taken by this site is they take each sample and each sequence independently. When we look at them all it takes a particularly stubborn view to not see that something is going on.In addtion, those holding this stubborn view have no other explanation for it of their own. They simply don't like what they see.

"Misleading"? Does that mean you accept that they are at least technically correct?Misleading, in what why?"anyone can prove anything with stats" -- only if those being given the stats allow it to happen. You can show what is wrong with the stats given if you are able to.It is apparent by this kind of reply that contains no real rebuttal that you are so far out on a limb that even you recognize that you are.------------------
Common sense isn't

Elder, that is the whole point. Milton said they are 'virtually identical' so that it would take an expert to tell them apart. I can see that they are not that identical. That's all it takes. The fact that I am not an expert tuned the subtle differences just strenghtens the point. What differences are you talking about? What attack on your personal beliefs? This is Milton's statements we are talking about not the Bible. The paragraph above is from post 54. You seem to be accepting that the genome does not have to match in any particular way. That destroys Milton talk about the unliklyness of mutations occuring twice. Do you understand what he was saying? If so you might try saying it in your own words. Then re explain what you are saying in post 54 about "geneologies".As for your 4 further evidences, is that your best shot? If you really want to go with those we can start on them after we've finished with this bit about Milton.------------------
Common sense isn't

Define "paucity". How many transitional fossils are there and what higher taxa do they connect?And which classes or orders are the ones for which transitionals are missing? Which are the most thinly supported?------------------
Common sense isn't[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-27-2003]

You have been given references to the transitionals and fossil evidence. The most recent a rather overly detailed one in the previous post.You have been asked for a statement on what you think is missing. Could you be a bit clear about exactly what you think is missing?I'm not sure there is anything else in your post that has to do with evolution and evidence. If there is you could highlight it perhaps and explain in what why it is.

It doesn't matter why someone isn't able to respond immediately. No one is required to devote any time to the forum that they can't afford to. There are probably some more important things to do. (Right now getting dinner is moving up that list).

---

Common sense isn't

And you have posted only a bit of his material so far and it proved to be wrong and silly. I presume you will pick more carefully next time?

---

Common sense isn't