0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Yes, together with the echidna they are the monotremes. The evolutionary path from reptile to placental mammal is becoming very well understood.
Evolution is due to random mutation where the nature of the mutation gives an advantage to the mutated animal. The failure rate is astronomical and the vast majority of mutations are not viable and die.The possibility that the same random mutation could occur independently in two animals of the same species is 1:astronomical^2 and the possibility of mutations occurring in two different species such that they not only survive, but converge, approaches 1:infinity.
You really don't know what you're talking about, Asyncritus.
Marsupial frogs arrive at those reproductive traits through convergent evolution.
Their system is not identical to that of mammals, and as a whole, frogs are relatively distantly related to mammals.
Winged flight in Pterosaurs, bats, birds, insects, is also convergent evolution.
The rate of beneficial mutations is not negligible. If it were, then instead of 99% of species to have ever lived having gone extinct, it would be 100%. Over 3.5 billion years, that's quite an impressive success rate when you consider that earth is such a hostile place with countless selection pressures. You've been shown numerous instances of beneficial traits arising in the modern day. You reject them because of your own misconceived creationist idea that only micro evolution occurs.
Stop spreading misinformation. This is a science forum. Creationism and creationist objections to science are NOT SCIENCE. I'm sure there are other places where people will gladly swallow your tripe unthinkingly and uncritically.
Your intellectual shortcomings are not grounds for disputing and misrepresenting science. Rather than employing almost every logical fallacy in the book, why don't you actually learn some biology before you even think of attempting a critique of it.
I don't need to wish it. I have 141 individual pieces of evidence in the form of your posts to confirm your ignorance, and that number shows no signs of not increasing. What I do wish is that you actually did understand the topics you criticize.
Convergence is the name of the process by which organisms of different lineages arrive at similar characteristics. There are various lines of evidence for how specific organisms arrive at specific traits, including fossil, genetic, and embryological. You can do the research for the evolution of specific species yourself - I'm not your Google. I am also not a statistician. If you want to know the probability of specific convergences, do your own research.
Since there is no plan or foresight, and no goals in evolution, and different populations are subjected to different genetic variation and selection pressures, how can you expect all frogs to develop the same traits? There are too many variables for that to happen often. And you said it yourself - there are different ways for an organism to be successful.
Of course frogs are related to mammals. All the genetic evidence shows that all the species alive on this planet have a common ancestor. And surprise surprise, the biochemistry is shared between species, from bacteria to humans.
A very quick google presented this paper that gives a quantified beneficial mutation rate. Guess what? Your argument that beneficial mutations are practically negligible is utterly wrong. Isn't it pathetic that a simple search was sufficient to demonstrate the ignorance on which your favorite argument is based?
Lee said nothing about beneficial mutations not arising.
Your famous saying? You should take your own advice.
Also, why do you keep starting new topics after the old ones back you into uncomfortable questions which you have yet to answer?
Quote from: _Stefan_ on 22/11/2008 07:31:44I don't need to wish it. I have 141 individual pieces of evidence in the form of your posts to confirm your ignorance, and that number shows no signs of not increasing. What I do wish is that you actually did understand the topics you criticize.You amaze me. You clearly can't recognise high intelligence when you see it, and that casts some doubt on your ability to recognise nonsense when you read it! Either way, you're not much of a judge. [B)]
Why do so many Evolution Scientists resort to insults and name calling?
which is what happened.