YEC. how do you explain Aussie marsupials exclusivity.

[RobertByers]

My fellow biblical creationists
How do you explain the exclusive result of numerous marsupial kinds in Australia and the lack of absence of other placental kinds there. (save birds, insects, lizards, few rodents,)?
Why this result from the migrations from the Ark?
I say the seeming abberation is in fact a revelation of another equation.
That these marsupials are the same kinds as elsewhere but simply upon entering Australia etc they changed to a better reproduction method from some innate trigger.
So a marsupial lion,wolf, mole, mouse are just the same as elsewhere but with a pouch etc.

This equation was repeated many times around a post flood earth.
Many creatures said to be unrelated to each other actually look the same.
So the hypothesis for Australia is tested successfully by the fossil record from a presumption the fossil record is post flood.

I know i'm rightyet
I am interested in what biblical creationist here think especially since the Australian anomoly comes up pretty quick in any discussions where the ark is the origin for post flood migrations of animals.

I wrote an essay called "Post Flood marsupial Migration Explain" by Robert Byers. Just google.

 

[Matthewj1985]

Only way I have ever see it explained was to use "goddidit" excuse you see so much when you back creationist into a corner. I have yet to be presented with anything that would stand up in an courtroom.

 

[laptoppop]

Actually it seems likely that the early days after the flood were especially fluid in terms of particular populations. We had few examples of each type of critter -- i.e. very small populations. Therefore localization of particular ecological communities makes all sorts of sense.

 

[RobertByers]

Actually it seems likely that the early days after the flood were especially fluid in terms of particular populations. We had few examples of each type of critter -- i.e. very small populations. Therefore localization of particular ecological communities makes all sorts of sense.

I think your agreeing with me.
Did you read my essay?
I don't know if small populations is needed as God told the creatures to quickly fill the earth. Marsupialism , I see, as a method to speed up reproduction and then it just stayed in the last gear. No need to change since.

Not many creationist responce here.
its a great idea to solve biogeography complaints from the bad guys.
What do creationists who haunt these forums think?

 

[Mallon]

My fellow biblical creationists
How do you explain the exclusive result of numerous marsupial kinds in Australia and the lack of absence of other placental kinds there. (save birds, insects, lizards, few rodents,)?
Why this result from the migrations from the Ark?
I say the seeming abberation is in fact a revelation of another equation.
That these marsupials are the same kinds as elsewhere but simply upon entering Australia etc they changed to a better reproduction method from some innate trigger.
So a marsupial lion,wolf, mole, mouse are just the same as elsewhere but with a pouch etc.

This equation was repeated many times around a post flood earth.
Many creatures said to be unrelated to each other actually look the same.
So the hypothesis for Australia is tested successfully by the fossil record from a presumption the fossil record is post flood.

I know i'm rightyet
I am interested in what biblical creationist here think especially since the Australian anomoly comes up pretty quick in any discussions where the ark is the origin for post flood migrations of animals.

I wrote an essay called "Post Flood marsupial Migration Explain" by Robert Byers. Just google.

Oops. I missed this thread before my last reply to pop's thread. So you think that marsupials are simply descendants from placental counterparts? What do you think is the placental counterpart to a kangaroo? And how do you account for the fact that the DNA of a marsupial "mole" is more similar to that of all other marsupials than it is to a true placental mole?

 

[RobertByers]

Oops. I missed this thread before my last reply to pop's thread. So you think that marsupials are simply descendants from placental counterparts? What do you think is the placental counterpart to a kangaroo? And how do you account for the fact that the DNA of a marsupial "mole" is more similar to that of all other marsupials than it is to a true placental mole?

dna just flows change in the body. hand in hand. So these placentals turning marsupial would get the same score of dna from the same mechanism that changed them.
In the fossil record its a constant theme of same shaped creatures being said to be unrelated because of minor points.
There are cats, bears, erc in many 'orders' said not to be cats and bears but just creatures looking the same from convergent evolution.

 

[Mallon]

dna just flows change in the body. hand in hand. So these placentals turning marsupial would get the same score of dna from the same mechanism that changed them.
In the fossil record its a constant theme of same shaped creatures being said to be unrelated because of minor points.
There are cats, bears, erc in many 'orders' said not to be cats and bears but just creatures looking the same from convergent evolution.

So you're basically arguing that DNA cannot be used to infer relatedness.
Do you reject the science behind paternity tests, then?
Now I'm really curious to know what other YECs here think about your hypothesis. I googled your article, and I see you've received quite a bit of feedback from elsewhere on the Internet.

 

[RobertByers]

So you're basically arguing that DNA cannot be used to infer relatedness.
Do you reject the science behind paternity tests, then?
Now I'm really curious to know what other YECs here think about your hypothesis. I googled your article, and I see you've received quite a bit of feedback from elsewhere on the Internet.

Did you read it?
Yes lots of feedback and the paternity thing has come up.
No i don't reject paternity tests.

Yes I say dna is not to infer relatedness.
so I reason like this.
when there is a change in the body then hand in hand goes the dna. so i see innate triggers in the body as able to bring great changes. it must be so.
it is so.
so if placentals become suddenly marsupials because of a need then the dna would change.
if there is no change then relatedness from dna is possible.
I'm like my dad and so it works there.
In fact I see post ice age dna tests of animals in north America as most likely accurate.
yet these animals adapted suddenly to the ice age and so before it it is misleading.

The idea of dna being a trail to ancestry is only so if there is no way to suddenly change creatures. if they can change and this requires dna change and a whole new code even perhaps then the dna trail is false.
Dna conclusions are based on untested presumptions. got a hunch this is going to change.

 

[Mallon]

Does your hypothesis make any predictions that can be used to test its veracity, Robert?

 

[RobertByers]

Does your hypothesis make any predictions that can be used to test its veracity, Robert?

Did you read it yet? come on its short.

The only prediction one might make is that the fossil record will hold same shaped creatures that are 95% the same but with minor details that separate them from their same shaped fellows.
This is what I found. they are wrongly classified as different orders.
yet there is four bear shaped creatures 95% the same but said different because of a pouch or this or that.
Of coarse the research discovered this before i predicted it.
It occured to me the marsupials were the same as others and I just noticed that this was a constant theme in the fossil record.

 

[Mallon]

Using the same criteria you use to associate placental mammals with marsupial counterparts, would you also argue that dolphins and ichthyosaurs are directly related? Euphorbia and Astrophytum? Whales and whale sharks?
Are all forms of supposed convergence actually due to common ancestry? How can we tell? How do we apply your criteria consistently to life?

 

[RobertByers]

Using the same criteria you use to associate placental mammals with marsupial counterparts, would you also argue that dolphins and ichthyosaurs are directly related? Euphorbia and Astrophytum? Whales and whale sharks?
Are all forms of supposed convergence actually due to common ancestry? How can we tell? How do we apply your criteria consistently to life?

Convergent evolution is a word used to explain away same shaped creatures with a minor difference that they are classifing it by.

Close inspection of anatomy reveals whether a creature is the same as this or that.
these sea creatures are only the same because of a minor need for locomotion in a water world.
Its the area that forces this sameness and its not the anatomy thats the same.
this makes my case.
Marsupials likewise adapted because of the area they moved too.

 

[marktheblake]

How do you explain the exclusive result of numerous marsupial kinds in Australia and the lack of absence of other placental kinds there. (save birds, insects, lizards, few rodents,)?

I have never had that question from anyone that knew what they were talking about, the simple answer is that marsupials are not exclusive to Australia and that ends the discussion.

I wrote an essay called "Post Flood marsupial Migration Explain" by Robert Byers. Just google.

Great work, i know its an old thread, but it was worth it.

Only way I have ever see it explained was to use "goddidit" excuse you see so much when you back creationist into a corner.

Just because one person doesn't know every intricate answer doesn't mean they are wrong on a large scale.

 

[alexross8]

About 1957 AM when the Earth was flooded , The crust of the Earth shifted , thus making the surface fall into the water , while allowing water to rise above it.
Because of the cold air that accumulated , the atmosphere got colder and came down , which made the water even higher.

After the atmosphere was permanently damaged , harmful radiation hit the Earth.
Because of this , dinosaurs and large insects died of suffocation.
Also , the radiation caused many animals to suddenly give birth to deformed animals.
After Noah's ark landed , the animal's deformities started to balance themselves out , and became new breeds or species.

Humans were affected as well , which explains why the children of Shem , Ham , and Japheth look different.

A group of animals most likely migrated to Australia where they had animals that were different than the species of mammal they came from.