Willowtree's Scientific Evidence against Evolution

There is an article in the 12 Dec issue of Science that goes into eutherian/metatherian ancestry, but the online version requires a subscription. They do link, however, to this index which appears to lead to pdfs with lots of info on thylacines as well as other marsupials.

Elder, And you know this how? Please remember the Thylacine is a marsupial, & the felidae are placentals.Mark

Yeah, I was wondering about this too. Elder seems to be suggesting that thylacines are the same 'kind' as wolves. Does this make, say, Tasmanian devils wolf kind too?DT

Any minute now of course the Elder is going to download the thylacine cytochrome b, 12S rRNA, and protamine 1 genes from GenBank, align them with those of say Canis lupus, H. sapiens, Bos taurus, and perhaps Dasyurus albopunctatus (just for fun) and then do some rough phylogenetic analysis and show us that the thylacine sequence falls closest to.....or perhaps a less complicated analysis is in order...do a BLAST search with this sequence and see if wolves or tigers are on the list1 atgattatca tacgaaaaac ccaccctctt ctaaaaacca ttaaccactc attcattgac
61 ttaccagcac cctccaacat ctcagcttga tgaaactttg gatccttact aggaatctgc
121 ctagtcattc aaatcttaac aggcctattt ctagcaatac attatacatc agacacatca
181 actgccttct cctcagtagc acatatctgc cgagacgtaa attatggatg acttattcgt
241 aacctccatg ccaatggagc ctccatattc ttcatatgct tatttcttca tgtaggacga
301 ggtatctact acggatcata cctgtacaaa gaaacatgaa acattggagt tatcctccta
361 ctaacagtaa tagcaactgc attcgtagga tatgtccttc catgaggcca aatatcattc
421 tgaggtgcta ccgtcattac taacctacta tctgccatcc cttacattgg aactacttta
481 gcagaatgag tttgaggagg attcgcagtg gacaaagcaa cactaacacg attctttgcc
541 ttccacttta tcctaccctc cattgtaaca gcacgagcta ctgttcacct actattcctt
601 catgaaacag gctctaataa cccctcagga attaacccag actcagacaa aatcccattc
661 cacccttact acaccatcaa agatgcccta ggcctcatac tcctacttct tccactcctt
721 cccctagccc tattctcacc agacttacta ggagacccag acaacttctc accagctaac
781 ccacttaaca caccacccca tattaaacca gaatggtact tcctattcgc atacgcaatc
841 ctacgatcaa tcccaaacaa actaggagga gtactagcac tactagcctc catcctaatc
901 ctcctaatta tcccattact tcatacatcc aaccaacgaa gcataatatt ccgaccaatc
961 tcccaaacac tattctgaat cctagctgcc aacctactta ccctaacctg aattggagga
1021 cagccagtag aacaaccatt catcatcatc ggacaactag ctatcattct ctacttccta
1081 ctaattgttg tcctaatgcc attagcagga ctactagaaa actatatgct agaacctaaa
1141 tgaagg
//

Comparing cytb gene products is a lot of fun as well (aa sequence). It appears that humans and wolves are more closely related (by % identity) than gray wolves and thylacine wolves. Also, thylacine wolves and Monodelphis adusta (sepia short-tailed opossum) are more closely related than thylacine wolves and gray wolves.>_ Thylacinus cynocephalus (Tasmanian wolf) 381 aa vs.
>_ Monodelphis adusta (sepia short-tailed opossum) 382 aa
scoring matrix: , gap penalties: -12/-2
88.5% identity; Global alignment score: 2338>_ Thylacinus cynocephalus (Tasmanian wolf) 381 aa vs.
>_ Canis lupus (gray wolf) 379 aa
scoring matrix: , gap penalties: -12/-2
80.8% identity; Global alignment score: 2175>_ Homo sapiens (human) 378 aa vs.
>_ Canis lupus (gray wolf) 379 aa
scoring matrix: , gap penalties: -12/-2
82.6% identity; Global alignment score: 2170sequences from NCBI and alignment done here.

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

quote:

---

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!

---

Did you really think that a creationist would actually do an ALIGN or a BLAST search? And if they did, do you think they would show the data when it argues against their position? I think their silence henceforth will speak volumes more than their predictions would have.

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.

I am saying that whatever the "Thylacines genealogy dictates is that which it's phenotypic make-up accumelates too. So if the Thylacine is realed to wolf then so be it, and if it be related to marsupial then so be it, I dont really care, honestly. Whatever the Thylacines genealogy dictates is that which the monster appears to be, But I will say that the monster does not look like a "TIGER/CAT" the monster looks like a "Dog/Wolf". Convergent evolution is adaptation in the life of the creature, thus, convergent evolution contradicts what I am saying because convergent evolution is not herditary changes over millions of years it is herditary changes according to habitat in the life of the creature. I dont know why I have too express my self, my writing is self explainable. The skulls are different yes, but they are not that different, I am a person who does not know the exact genealogy of the Thylacine I will admit and as such you can understand that the difference between those could be as simple as one or maybe two different ancestors that is all, but if the chain is tremendously different I suggest you post the chain so I may see it. Understood before I started posting. I suggest you stop having so much faith in evolution and see if perhaps it is wrong before you assume it is right and allow every fable to enter your ear. No. a Common ancestor at somepoint, perhaps genetic drift occured/mutation occured something along those lines. That is if indeed mutation can lead to such a change, which is un-proven. I believe I have, if I have not then translate what you are looking for more specifically.------------------
The Elder[This message has been edited by The Elder, 12-20-2003]

"CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG PLEASE"My understanding of convergent evolution is in the lifetime of the species which is subject to "convergent-e" the species changes according to adaptation, which means, the fetus cannot look like it appears after adaptation. The fetus I posted looks the same, except, not fully grown of course. If you are telling me that the full grown Thylacine is a product of convergent evolution because it has stripes well, I dont think that is convergent evolution. Already understood.------------------
The Elder

Huh? You're saying that convergent evolution is when the environment causes heritable change in an individual organism?That's Lamarkian evolution, and that hasn't been supported since, well, Darwin.Convergent evolution is when two unrelated species look similar because they adapted to similar environments. That's usually characterized by great morphological similarity but very dissimilar genetics.

Elder,It has been long understood that ontogeny does NOT recapitulate phylogeny. It is true that phylogenetic atavisms can be preserved ontologically, but they don't have to be.Therefore a thylacine embryo looking like another embryo where both adult forms are similar/convergent isn't particularly surprising.It is much more likely that the thylacine evolved from ancestral marsupial stock (it being a marsupial) rather than evolved marsupialness from placental carnivora stock that never existed in Australia (therefore a little unlikely!). It therefore stands to reason that canines & thylacines are the result of convergent evolution based upon similar lifestyles rather than sharing common derived characters.Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-20-2003]

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?

ELDER : I am going to use your post to break my silence. I will not respond to the creator of THIS topic to protest the reasons they gave for creating this topic (which said reasons are contained in the last post of my closed topic)The evidence I offer is from a non-creationist Richard Milton. This person becomes independant corroboration of my starting assumption that evolution is not true.http://www.alternativescience.com/...origins-transitions.htmAnyone who cares needs to read this thread. It is the foundation of my evidence which also evidences my proven claim that included in the scientific evidence offered by Darwinists is the assumption of their worldview that God does not exist. NOBODY can separate (including myself) the bias contained in their worldview from their evidence.Thus if the scientific evidence is defective and suspect then so is every claim of certainty contained in the starting assumptions of their worldview.The worldview of neo-Darwinism is atheism this is not a matter of opinion. If anyone wants to change the subject and bring up theistic evolution then create another topic.

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?