Noah way?

[MarkT]

Wouldn't that be a massive violation of the command to "multiply after their kind"?

Yes. God saw the earth and it was corrupt in his sight; for all flesh had corrupted their way.

 

[PsychoSarah]

All living marsupials - such as wallabies, kangaroos and opossums - all originated in South America, a new genetic study suggests.

Yep – the animals most famous for populating Australia actually started out on another continent altogether. But marsupials – a group of mammals known for toting their young in belly pouches on the females – are still common in South America, too.

The recent study used new genetic data about some of these species to trace the family tree.

Marsupials Not From Down Under After All | LiveScience

Not bad, actually. But it doesn't redeem you for thinking that species interbreeding and creating new species is a valid process to explain how all new species develop

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yes. God saw the earth and it was corrupt in his sight; for all flesh had corrupted their way.

Nothing god couldn't have prevented or fixed without destruction.

 

[PsychoSarah]

In all fairness, if you said something that absurd, would you want to admit it?

I have admitted defeat before. You have to admit your mistakes before you can learn from them.

 

[MarkT]

Not bad, actually. But it doesn't redeem you for thinking that species interbreeding and creating new species is a valid process to explain how all new species develop

I wouldn't say it's the only process, but it does mix things up. There's also geographic isolation when population get separated. There's also natural selection, mutations, genetic drift.

 

[Herman Hedning]

Any animals that were there before the flood were destroyed by the flood. That would include any marsupials that were there.

Which is a great argument against the flood.

 

[Herman Hedning]

In a series of new genetic investigations, experts demonstrate that kangaroos and other marsupials did not evolve in Antarctica, as previously thought. It would appear that the animals actually appeared in South America, and that they still exist there today. Marsupials stand out from other species through the fact that they feed and carry their youngsters around in special pouches on their bellies. With the new finding, experts are bound to gather even more data on the history of this family of creatures.



In order to make the research possible, scientists looked at the marsupial species that still live in South America today. “The two recently sequenced marsupial genomes of the South American opossum (Monodelphis domestica) and a kangaroo, the Australian tammar wallaby (Macropus eugenii), provide a unique opportunity to apply a completely new approach to resolve marsupial relationships,” explains researcher Maria A. Nilsson. She is based at the University of Munster, in Germany, LiveScience reports.

Nilsson is also the leader of an international group of experts that conducted the new investigation. The group published its findings in the July 27 issue of the esteemed open-access journal PLoS Biology, which is edited by the Public Library of Science. The group reveals that studies highlight a very interesting point – all marsupials living today, in both South American and Australia – share a common ancestor. The conclusion was derived from analysis of special genetic markers called retroposons, which are identical in marsupials on both continents.

However, determining the history of this animal group for a fact is very difficult, given that no hard evidence exist. Researchers would be ecstatic to find a fossil of an intermediary creature, but thus far such a finding has eluded them. The genetic data seems to indicate that the species currently in existence – as well as some that have since gone extinct – separate from a common ancestor around 80 million years ago. At that time, the landmass that contained Antarctica, Australia and South America broke apart, and the three new continents began drifting on Earth's mantle.

Kangaroos Come from South America

Which is perfectly fine of course. At that time, the southern hemisphere looked a bit like this:

Marsupials would then spread from South America, across Antarctica, to Australia. It would be interesting to know if any marsupial fossils have been found in Antarctica. Of course, most of that is covered with ice, so it is even harder to find fossils there than at other places.

 

[VirOptimus]

How is that not possible and yet all of life; plant and animal; evolving from some magic Frankencell IS possible? The difference is, with God all things are possible. Without God, all things are impossible.

If you learn about evolution you will see how it is indeed both possible and sound scientifically.

God is neither disproved or proved by this, and trying to bring religion into the science is a really bad idea.

 

[EternalDragon]

Just out of curiosity, could you state in a formal logical syllogism showing how evolution is illogical?

Just to say something is illogical is not very productive as I see the terms logical and illogical being thrown about by people who don't seem to understand the basics or application of logic.

Dizredux

Granville Sewell. He's better at math than me.

 

[lasthero]

Granville Sewell. He's better at math than me.

Surely you can regurgitate whatever it is he said that you find to be so compelling.

 

[EternalDragon]

Surely you can regurgitate whatever it is he said that you find to be so compelling.

I already have, numerous times.

Some aspects of evolution apart from "species change" is illogical. Like the idea of common ancestry that we all came from a single cell or that dinosaurs can change into bird and apes can change into humans. It requires something along the lines of hitting the same lottery for a million dollars, a million times in a row.

The idea that random natural processes have reorganized the basic particles of Nature that then led to computers and ipods being invented is highly illogical and statistically impossible. They've run computer models to try to recreate the process and it doesn't seem to work like that.

You are trying to tell me that a tornado running in reverse and building a house is not illogical.

 

[Loudmouth]

I already have, numerous times.

Some aspects of evolution apart from "species change" is illogical. Like the idea of common ancestry that we all came from a single cell or that dinosaurs can change into bird and apes can change into humans. It requires something along the lines of hitting the same lottery for a million dollars, a million times in a row.

Let's see your math. Just a warning. Be aware of the Sharpshooter Fallacy.

Texas sharpshooter fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The idea that random natural processes have reorganized the basic particles of Nature . . .

Seriously. Do you even know what evolution is?

They've run computer models to try to recreate the process and it doesn't seem to work like that.

Nature has already ran the process, and it does work that way.

You are trying to tell me that a tornado running in reverse and building a house is not illogical.

Is that like the process that produces human babies? If not, then why use this analogy?

 

[lasthero]

It requires something along the lines of hitting the same lottery for a million dollars, a million times in a row.

No, it doesn't.

They've run computer models to try to recreate the process and it doesn't seem to work like that.

What computer models?

You are trying to tell me that a tornado running in reverse and building a house is not illogical.

I don't think the word 'illogical' means what you think it means. You seem to be using it for a synonym to 'unlikely', and it's not.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I already have, numerous times.

Some aspects of evolution apart from "species change" is illogical. Like the idea of common ancestry that we all came from a single cell or that dinosaurs can change into bird and apes can change into humans. It requires something along the lines of hitting the same lottery for a million dollars, a million times in a row.

Fortunately natural selection is the mechanism which allows advantageous changes to be preserved.

How much easier would it be to win the same lottery when you get to keep every number you get right? That million's as good as yours inside a month, tops.

The idea that random natural processes have reorganized the basic particles of Nature that then led to computers and ipods being invented is highly illogical and statistically impossible.

Because natural selection only applies to living things, not computers or iPods -- funny how your man Sewell didn't mention that.

They've run computer models to try to recreate the process and it doesn't seem to work like that.

"They" who?

You are trying to tell me that a tornado running in reverse and building a house is not illogical.

No, but you're willing to think that's how it works.

 

[Dizredux]

I already have, numerous times.

Some aspects of evolution apart from "species change" is illogical. Like the idea of common ancestry that we all came from a single cell or that dinosaurs can change into bird and apes can change into humans. It requires something along the lines of hitting the same lottery for a million dollars, a million times in a row.

The idea that random natural processes have reorganized the basic particles of Nature that then led to computers and ipods being invented is highly illogical and statistically impossible. They've run computer models to try to recreate the process and it doesn't seem to work like that.

You are trying to tell me that a tornado running in reverse and building a house is not illogical.

It is ironic. You talk about evolution being illogical then post statements that are quite lacking in logical structure.

Oh well. As I said, I suspect that you don't have much of a clue about logic and what is logical or illogical.

I will keep on waiting for you to show your statements in syllogistic form as I requested.

Dizredux

 

[Strathos]

That was a theory I jettisoned in favor of God sending them back to their points of origination via an Acts 8 miracle.

I believe they stepped through the door of the Ark and were instantly back where they came from.

What's your answer, by the way?

The flood was local, thus animals from all over the world didn't need to be preserved.

 

[poikilotherm]

Humans arrived in Australia about 15,000 years ago according to the skeletal remains at Lake Mungo. This would be after the flood.

The ancestors of the Aboriginal people arrived in Australia by boat from South America; it was probably an accidental discovery. They brought animals with them for food, suggesting they were not planning a long trip.

They didn't bring cattle with them; that would have meant a settlement. Instead they brought rabbit like marsupials. Food.

There were very few placental mammals in Australia before the flood so naturally you would not expect to find many after the flood, except for the kinds that were introduced by humans.

After the flood there were no predators, no dinosaurs, etc. so marsupials dominated.

Marsupials are not only rabbit like, they are also mouse like, bear like, mole like, cat like, squirrel like, anteater like and large kangaroo like ( 1.8 m tall and weighs up to 85 kg(187 lb)) Fossils suggest some marsupials were hippopotamus sized, furthermore, many marsupials are carnivores which are not usually eaten by man - Why would they bring marsupials that were not suitable for eating? Why did they not bring placentals that are suitable for eating?

 

[Queller]

Yes. God saw the earth and it was corrupt in his sight; for all flesh had corrupted their way.

When Genesis 6 talks about the earth being corrupt, it is talking about humans being corrupt and evil, not animals interbreeding outside their kinds.

I can't even begin to understand how someone could think that rabbits and opossums could breed and create a kangaroo.

 

[selfinflikted]

I can't even begin to understand how someone could think that rabbits and opossums could breed and create a kangaroo.

Why not? I mean, some people believe in talking donkeys, people rising from the dead, and a 6,000 year old earth. Is this really such a stretch?

 

[SkyWriting]

When Genesis 6 talks about the earth being corrupt, it is talking about humans being corrupt and evil, not animals interbreeding outside their kinds.

I can't even begin to understand how someone could think that rabbits and opossums could breed and create a kangaroo.

There is no classification such as "Kinds."
It means "they looked like their parents."

New Living Translation
God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to produce offspring of the same kind.
And God saw that it was good.