Marsupial evolution

Is it your impression I was arguing that ALL of the other traits are identical?Hmmm...

If you were not arguing ALL other traits, please provide for us the proper interpretation of this statement (particularly the bold part): Furthermore, you've still failed to address the fact that the dental formula, the reproductive system, the various skull features in Arachnophobia's skull photographs, and the genetics nicely correlate to the grouping of bears and wolves with horses, rodents and bats, and to the grouping of thylacines with kangaroos, Tasmanian devils, sugar gliders and opossums (the link on "genetics" is an example of the many studies done to determine the phylogenetic relationships of the thylacine: this one allies it to the marsupial order Dasyuromorphia, which includes numbats, quolls and the Tasmanian devil).If anything, the similarity between wolves and thylacines provides a wonderful proof of evolution: otherwise, you've got an Intelligent Designer who used two different methods and constructions to make a dog-like animal, and chose to make the "dog" of each region similar to the other animals of that region on all taxonomic fronts.

---

Darwin loves you.

The point is refers to your post and the posts going back to arach's original post I responded to. You tried to say that the differences outweighed the similarities, right? My point is that you were cherry-picking what to compare. Furthermore, you included the reproductive differences which is absurd. Of course, there are reproductive differences. The point (Arach's point and your's presumably since you were defending it) is to compare everything BUT the reproductive differences.You are cherry-picking some differences and not making a comprehensive analysis.

I think it would be appropriate for you to show what they are leaving out. Others have listed various things besides the reproductive system.Exactly what is your "comprehensive analysis"?If you aren't willing to respond to what has been posted by others here you'll have to leave this thread. It is time to demonstrate that you do actually read what is posted to you.

Every trait not mentioned....all those but the few characteristics mentioned (cherry-picked) here by evos. You mean like reading a complaint about how another creationist/IDer is treated and realizing who the people are that are involved? Where have I claimed a "comprehensive analysis"? In fact, my whole point is you cannot list a few characteristics and then claim based on those few characteristics that marsupials or placentals are more alike with each other than their marsupial or placental pairs(minus the reproductive system).How could you have interpreted making this point as not reading what others have posted? Serious question because you asked me to respond and did so with charges of not reading in a highly insulting manner which would seem to be a rules-violation all on it's own.All I have asked for is that if evos are going to make claims on this thread, they provide a comprehensive analysis for such a claim.Is it now wrong to ask for evidence from evos too?Furthermore, my original recent post on this thread was just pointing out that comparing dogs and wolves, arguably the same species, to make a point about, say, the similarity of dogs and mice or some other placental is fallacious.Did I make a correct point there or not? In fact, I read what was posted and correctly pointed out the error. Perhaps that's why you are so angry?Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

I think I'll have to argue in non admin mode to be a bit fair. Touche! So far in this thread the traits mentioned show that the marsupials all group more closer to each other than to their superficial look-a-like mammals.Now it is your turn to supply traits that show the opposite.I guess someone very foolish would start with something like 4-legs, but you've been through this before so you wouldn't do that, would you?Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.

But one of those examples of similar traits involve comparing subspecies of Placentals with a different species of Marsupials.....not exactly a valid comparison, is it? No, because I am not making a claim on this thread as you surmise. I have just correctly and merely pointed out that the evidence offered so far is not comprehensive and as with the dog and wolf comparison, faulty. I think looking at the data itself is very important. Just focussing on a few traits is not sufficient if you are going to make the claim that all placentals are more similar to one another than any one of them to marsupials (minus the reproductive system of course). That is a claim by evos here but it has not been adequately supported.Demanding I take the opposite position and disprove the evo claim with the idea presumably that the evo position is thus substantiated strikes me as odd. Isn't it the case that the one making the claim should substantiate it? Edited by randman, : No reason given.

SKreeccchhhh. Damn those moving goal-posts are noisy! Let's see, wolves have grey fur while thylacines have brown with black stripe fur ... ... or do we need to compare them to whales The items picked are specifically picked to show that there is different lineages, ancestors of each that are more different than the modern species. But the similarities also show lineage between the two, just much more ancient than either wolf or thylacine appearance. We can compare both to synapsids, some of the earliest mammals known, and see that features that wolves and thylacines share are mostly shared by synapsids, so these similarities help define both as in the mammal branch but not much more than that. What more do you need, once you have demonstrated the differences between the two means the relationship between them is nothing more than convergent evolution between two distantly related mammalia branches, older than the classification of carnivoria?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : .

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

What we need are the facts. Just present a comprehensive analysis to back up your claim. There should be some paper verifying this claim by evos, right?Let's see it. Or is this just something that "must be true." Addtionally, you've made a lot of statements without backing them up. You say, for example: But you list no facts except the classifications by evos which in part is based on the reproductive system but the claim is absent the reproductive system, placentals are more similar than marsupials, period. I am not sure at all that this is the case, nor that any studies have been conducted to verify that claim. You offer no real comprehensive data or even much data at all.Additionally, if the claim is true, why not compare wolves and human beings with the thylacine. or humans beings and mice with marsupial mice. Let's really challenge this concept and see if it holds true.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

As opposed to the classifications of creationists? That "kinds" nonsense? What a joke!It's a big internet; perhaps you could take a look around and see if you could find some of this information for yourself. But you have to get away from the creationist websites. They have a tendency to lie about science.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Real science is about vigorously challenging theories and concepts to see if they hold true. It seems that suggesting that is necessary bothers you here.Let's see if, for example, human beings and placental mice are indeed more similar than marsupial and placental mice, or any of these claims hold true. Just presenting a few traits and comparing them, cherry-picking the data, is not vigorously testing the concept.You are not wedded to any particular outcome, are you?Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Ah yes, those silly taxonomists just make stuff up, eh? Do you really have no idea of how massive is the amount of information available, how long it has been assembled and reviewed and added to?Here's a thought: take you question to the nearest natural history museum and ask to see the director, who is of course twiddling his thumbs, because evos don't really do anything but imagine stuff. Tell him you think there's been a big mistake, and wolves and thylacines are really closely related. You could try the Field Museum in Chicago, and ask said director if you can go through the drawers and drawers of fossils and skeletons, the way scientists do. Then travel to the other museums and do the same. London is supposed to be pretty good.Btw, it might be useful (in getting permission) to be at least a graduate student in biology ... Like arachnophilia did on just this topic?And you can look up bears yourself: google bear skull skulls unlimited has a bunch you can look at. First we'll list what they have for the gray wolf:Access denied

quote:

---

Gray Wolf
Order: Carnivora
Family: Canidae
Canis lupus
Average Skull Length: 29cm / 11.4
Origin: North America
Carnivore
Incisor 3 top / 3 bottom
Canine 1 top /1 bottom
Premolar 4 top /4 bottom
Molar 2 top / 3 bottom
x 2 sides = 42

---

Then what they say for thylacine:
Access denied

quote:

---

Tasmanian Wolf
Order: Dasyuromorphia
Family: Thylacinidae
Thylacinus cynocephalus
Skull Length: 22cm / 8.7"
Origin: Tasmania
Carnivore
Incisor 4 top / 3 bottom
Canine 1 top /1 bottom
Premolar 3 top /3 bottom
Molar 4 top / 4 bottom
x 2 sides = 46

---

Now on to the bears:Access denied

quote:

---

Polar Bear
Order: Carnivora
Family: Ursidae
Ursus maritimus
Skull Length: 46cm / 18.11"
Origin: North America
Carnivore
Incisor 3 top / 3 bottom
Canine 1 top /1 bottom
Premolar 4 top /4 bottom
Molar 2 top / 3 bottom
x 2 sides = 42

---

Look at that! exactly the same pattern as the wolves!!!!Access denied

quote:

---

Grizzly Bear
Order: Carnivora
Family: Ursidae
Ursus arctos
Average Skull Length: 49.5cm
Origin: North America
Omnivore
Incisor 3 top / 3 bottom
Canine 1 top /1 bottom
Premolar 4 top /4 bottom
Molar 2 top / 3 bottom
x 2 sides = 42

---

Not surprising both N.American bears are similar, even though different species, and one is an omnivore while the other is a carnivore.Not surprising that they are similar to other carnivora - wolves - in the number and placement of teeth.Not surprising (to me anyway) they are different from thylacine in number and placement of teeth.But that's not all ...Sun bears are found in south asia:
Access denied

quote:

---

Sun Bear Order: Carnivora
Family: Ursidae
Ursus malayanus
Average Skull Length: 22cm
Origin: Asia
Omnivore
Incisor 3 top / 3 bottom
Canine 1 top /1 bottom
Premolar 4 top /4 bottom
Molar 2 top / 3 bottom
x 2 sides = 42

---

Oops same teeth again!Access denied

quote:

---

Giant Panda
Order: Carnivora
Family: Ursidae
Ailuropoda melanoleuca
Skull Length: 26.5cm / 10.43"
Origin: China
Omnivore
Incisor 3 top / 3 bottom
Canine 1 top /1 bottom
Premolar 4 top /4 bottom
Molar 2 top / 3 bottom
x 2 sides = 42

---

Even the Panda has the same teeth pattern!Access denied

quote:

---

Raccoon
Order: Carnivora
Family: Procyonidae
Procyon lotor
Average Skull Length: 12cm
Origin: North America
Omnivore
Incisor 3 top / 3 bottom
Canine 1 top /1 bottom
Premolar 4 top /4 bottom
Molar 2 top / 2 bottom
x 2 sides = 40

---

Slight difference, but still more similar to wolf than to thylacine.We can also look at felinesAccess denied

quote:

---

African Lion
Order: Carnivora
Family: Felidae
Panthera leo
Skull Length: 36cm / 14.17"
Origin: Africa
Carnivore
Incisor 3 top / 3 bottom
Canine 1 top /1 bottom
Premolar 3 top /2 bottom
Molar 1 top / 1 bottom
x 2 sides = 30

---

Domestic cat and other felines similar (30 teeth). Still more similar to wolf than to thylacine.In fact you can read down this list and see the teeth listed:
Access deniedWeasels, badgers, skunks, otters, mongoose, etc etc etc ... none with 3 premolars and 4 molars like the thylacine.And that's just the teeth. The information is out there Randman, piles of it, and all you need to do is search for it ... if you really want to know.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : !Edited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : .

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

"Real science" is not conducted in internet chatrooms, nor do those creationists who deny the scientific method have any role in it.All of the questions you are asking will be addressed in the scientific literature. What we say here is not going to affect the course of science a whit, nor are the little "victories" or "defeats" of any substance.If you really want the answers to your questions, a bit of research will find them for you. If all you want to do is tilt against big science, because it comes up with answers inconvenient to a particular religious belief, that seems such a waste of time.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Ok, provide links to the specific papers in the scientific literature then.

So your recommendation is to go to a museum to prove your point? All I am asking is for is a link to the specific scientific papers that do a comprehensive study to substantiate your point.Are you unable to provide that?In terms of your comments, isn't it true that one reason marsupials and placentals are classified together is based on their reproductive system. You don't need to go to a museum to understand that, but that hardly substantiates your claims, does it?You are suggesting, right, that everything considered besides the reproductive system shows that all placentals are more similar than any placental is to a marsupial. I don't think you can show that and doubt it is true, but regardless know of no papers or research comprehensively substantiating that claim. Do you? You are welcome to provide a link to a paper showing that.Do you have such evidence for your stance?Btw, the link you provided to arachnophilia shows a comparison between a placental wolf and a dog with a marsupial wolf. Now, aren't wolves and dogs essentially the same species, at least in the sense they can and do successfully interbreed and produce fertile offspring? Seems a bit flawed to compare differences in subspecies with differences in species to make your point.In terms of bears and wolves, your link is not a comprehensive analysis but just examines a few traits. As such, it doesn't substantiate your point very well.Also, your links really are somewhat bare links. Can you quote the parts and point the specifics out that you think substantiate your claims?