I truly have no clue what you mean by that. What do you mean by that?
No. What do you mean by “boutique example”? I want to know why you think this case would be more compelling to creationists than anything I’ve brought up. Please explain.
I know you like to dismiss most anything im doing.
But instead of me endlessly repeating what ive already said… i would courteously ask you to produce a better (more impressive) narrow-focused case of speciation that:
-
has genetic studies that indicate a mutually close connection to a hypothetical common ancestor;
-
and leads to 4 or 5 radically different body types in the modern populations.
My readings indicate that to maximize speed of radiation, the hypothetical common population needs to encounter a geographical region where there are few or no rivals already in place.
This last part is certainly what makes Australia such a stunning set piece! The marsupial group arrived before most mammalian rivals (or ANY of them?) had found the place… and then Australia provided the ultimate solution against follow-on migrations by moving out into the ocean.
By creating a large and varied ecosystem, the rate of change - -
[ Rate = (Mutation x Nat.Selection)/ Time ]
-
- was fast enough, and recent enough to the modern period, that genetic testing could show persuasive levels of ‘relatedness’.
The final element that i had forgotten to mention is that by being in an isolated/closed system, we are able to ask with greater confidence:
A) if not the the common ancestral population that we have found, what other founder population do we have?
B) If these are not the successor groups to the founders, where did they come from?
A little less attitude would help here. You must understand, first, that this is my field, and I don’t think anyone else here can say that. I can help you understand this stuff.
I have two purposes in this particular conversation. First, I would like to understand what features of a study you think are useful in convincing creationists. You have not been forthcoming so far, perhaps not on purpose. Second, I want to help you understand the science. You seem to have a number of misconceptions, and I’m trying to figure out what they are so I can help you with them.
First, this is not a case of speciation. It’s a phylogenetic analysis. Of course, it implies that a certain minimum amount speciation must have happened, but that’s not the same thing. Second, it isn’t clear what you mean by “a mutually close connection to a hypothetical common ancestor”. I can’t even speculate on what you mean. Other than that phrase, all the examples I have mentioned fit your two criteria.
That certainly would help. But you have no idea how fast that radiation was, because the paper doesn’t discuss it.
Not clear, actually. There is an Eocene fossil that’s claimed to be a placental.
True for all the examples I have mentioned also.
That’s not a well-formed question. We haven’t found a common ancestral population.
What founders? More importantly, is any of this relevant to your goal of convincing creationists?
I’m assuming that you are looking to persuade creationists, such as YECs.
Let me break it to you. Many YECs do not see anything special about marsupials. They believe that the koala is of the same kind as the grizzly bear, and differs only by some micro-evolution. Likewise, they see the marsupial wolf as the same kind as placental wolves, with just a little micro-evolution involved.
Also, it might be helpful to remember that Australians are very aware of the special nature of their fauna. And Ken Ham is Australian, so fully aware of that. Yet he is still a YEC.
That placental has no surviving successors. In fact, someone in BioLogos recently told me that new evaluations of the bones indicate its not a true placental anyway … but i havent had time to confirm that.
If it was still living when the marsupials arrived, they were superior to it.
It seems to have gone extinct either before or during the marsupial arrival. What is a FACT is that the only other pre-human placental in Australia are the BATS!
This isn’t surprising. It was fragmentary and uncertain.
You assume, without warrant, that extinction always arises from competition.
Not quite a fact, actually. There are also a few rodents.
But you have fastened onto a trivial feature and ignored the main content. What do you have to say about all that?
I DID also mention that it could have gone extinct even before Marsupials arrived.
Im pretty open to most any reasonable scenario. The point however, is clear. That other group appears completely irrelevant.
If we reversed positions here… i wouldnt have even bothered you about them…because i dont know what happened to it… but i do know they are long gone, and at least one source says they were gone even before the marsupials arrived.
Again, I ask you to abandon this trivial side issue.
1 Like
WHICH side issue have you asked me to abandon? Did i miss a posting?
If you had used the “quote” tool… i might have figured it out on my own…
Once again I have no idea what you mean by that.
@John_Harshman replied to 7 individual questions/points in this comment (#23): Lab Quality Case Study: Phenotypical Radiation in Australia
Since then you’ve only responded to one of them: the presence of placentals in Australia prior to marsupials. I think John is asking for you to respond to his other points in that comment, or his more general question about why you think this particular paper is so remarkable.
3 Likes
If my android doesnt tell me, i dont know where they are.
I thought there was some conversation missing some where. So now that i know there are unanswered questions ill roll up the thread and find them.
If you know the post number that will be a big help
Funny… ive never heard about the rodents… when did the rodents arrive.
As for the main content… i just found this post minutes ago…and im scrolling up to find the main content.
They have numbers?
It’s surprisingly hard to find good information on the web about this, but here’s a Wikipedia entry:
List of rodents of Australia - Wikipedia.
1 Like
Ahhhh… so i go to the post #23… which you also had the forethought to link.
That was very helpful!
I should point out that when yoi ssid there were a bunch of questions, i was looking for a post with enumerated questions.
Sorry, but that doesn’t show up for me. Maybe it’s only on the phone?
Thank you… that is a big help. And here is a quote of what i was looking for:
" This is the list of rodents of Australia.[1][2]Australia has a large number of indigenous rodents, all from the family Muridae. These are presumed to have arrived within the last 4 million years from Asia.[3]
As we can see, the rodents arrived recently in comparison to the marsupials. The marsupials walked to Australia … and the rodents must have been washed ashore on storm tossed floating lumber.
Dingos arrived about 40k or 50k years ago; some think early aborigines brought them to Australia.