Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Wombat

2007-07-25T11:52:41Z

Myrtle: /* I would think… */

Once again, it would be helpful to have actual evidence to back up the creationist ideas here. Evidence does not mean quoting an opinion from creationist books, but actual physical, observable evidence. Thanks. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:51, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

It's interesting to note that Reference 4 does not in any way support the assertion that it is supposed to be verifying - that there was a land bridge between Australia and Europe. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 05:52, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:Thanks for pointing that out. I've provided a different reference. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:45, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

==Evolution of the wombat==

If anyone has proof that the wombat evolved, please present it. Merely saying that some scientists "asserts" or "speculates" something tells our readers nothing.

I've heard speculation that the earth is hollow and we're all walking around on the inner surface of a sphere, with gravity pulling us outward. But without a theoretical explanation (which is [[falsifiable]]), I would dismiss such a notion as [[pseudoscience]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:08, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

: Ed, so under that logic why did you leave in the creationist section? Heck, we should remove any mention of origins related issues from all articles. I'm not going to do that since I appreciate the point of a WP:POINT sort of guideline even if we dont have one here. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:13, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::Joshua, I appreciate your respect of the golden rule ("do as you would be done by"). In general, you can follow Wikipedia rules here, and "using disruption to make a point" is pretty much frowned upon here (as there). I'm glad you stopped your disruption after only one article.

::Perhaps you'd like to explain why you feel the creationist section should be deleted. That is the usual "wiki" thing to do: explain one's intent or rationale, rather than engaging in an [[edit war]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:22, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Ed, I have to ask, Did you question the falsifiability of the theory of evolution? Also I do see where Josh is going with this. What proof is there for the creationist's claims that trumps the proof over the evolutionist claims?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:27, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::: The reasoning was (as Tim seems to have understood) was that if you consider the evolution section to be too speculative than a fortiori so is the creationist section. (Incidentally, it appears that CP agrees with me. See his recent edits restoring both). (I'll ignore your unfounded implication that I was "disruptive") [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:29, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
== Mitochondrial and fossil evidence ==

JoshuaZ has inserted the line, "''This hypothesis is supported by [[mitochrondria|mitochondrial]] genetic evidence as well as fossil evidence''". Not having access to his source, could he or someone please explain how the evidence support this? Thanks in anticipation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:25, 7 May 2007 (EDT) (P.S. I hadn't see the section above when I posted this.)

: The mitochondrial DNA divergence matches the expected phylogentic tree (actually, the ref shows slightly more, since there has been some controversy about certain details of the major marsupial evolution and the ref supports one version over another, what's known as the Marsupionta hypothesis). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:29, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I was hoping for a little bit more detail than that (but not too much). Specifically, one of the things that anti-creationists so often overlook is that if ''both'' creation and evolution make similar predictions, then the evolutionary prediction being fulfilled does not support evolution over creation. Can you explain how the evidence supports the evolutionary view ''over'' the creationary view? If not, I don't think that bit should be in there. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:37, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Well that paper and others give times of divergence based on the molecular evidence and neutral mutation rate that are close to the standard times from the fossil record. For example, the genetic evidence given in the paper gives a divergence time of around 70 million years between the Australian marsupials and the South American marsupials. This is consistent with that derived from the fossil record, which is generally put at between 60 and 90 million years or so(those numbers may be slightly, off I haven't look at some of this material in a while, but they are roughly correct). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:51, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

==This little animal!!==
This little animal is getting far to much attention... I mean like come on. People don't argue whether it it has evolved or not, if you can find the link then thats great. Joshua stop being so combative. Ed you always take a beating and I am glad you are stiking to your "guns". 2 or 3 of you work on this, or peacefully discuss this. Thats all folks.--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 11:30, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

== I would think… ==

that a rear-facing pouch is inconclusive at best. Here's a hypothetical evolutionary sequence:

<ol>
<li>Wombat is born with a mutation causing the pouch to face backwards</li>

Now, at least one of at least two scenarios can occur:

<li>Wombat is now able to dig w/o killing young, thus conferring an advantage</li>

or

<li>Wombat's young have a greater incidence of survival, thus also conferring a benefit.
 </ol>
Hypothetically, we could also imagine a scenario where the wombat's young better survived because predators were acclimated to forward-facing pouches. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 13:03, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
:True, it is not conclusive. Very few arguments taken in isolation are. However, this is just another example of an evolutionary [[just so story]]—pure speculation without any evidence and almost certainly requiring multiple interdependent biological changes, not the sort of thing that would come about "with a mutation". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:45, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
::Are you talking about the scientific understanding of evolution of a backward facing pouch? I have never seen an evolutionary argument that says the wombat's pouch did a 180 degree rotation from front facing to backwards facing over a long period of time, rather that koalas and wombats are more closely related, and developed pouches that face backward, while other marsupials developed pouches that faced forward. It is not necessary to start from the position of a fully formed pouch: take monotremes: platypuses don't have a pouch, and an echidna has a temporary pouch. For live births with very small young, a pouch confers benefits. The direction would be less important.[[User:Myrtle|Myrtle]] 08:20, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Perhaps you could tell us what the evolutionary understanding is? Proposing that pouches evolved separately twice is just making the evolutionary story even more incredible. Have you ever seen a pouch that is incomplete (not fully-formed/fully-evolved)? I'd suggest that such a thing is more evolutionary story-telling. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:34, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
::::The echidna has a not-fully-formed pouch. I have seen it. 
:::: As far as the evolutionary view goes, I understand that there are great variations in individuals. The heritable variations, over lots of time, end up resulting in huge differences. Genome analysis provides evidence of this. 

::::Pouches are almost essential to marsupials, since the young are born so underdeveloped, and so it wouldn't really be a surprise if the pouch were found to have evolved multiple times.

::::The marsupials with backward facing pouches all use four legs to move (on two legs, a backwards facing pouch wouldn't work too well). These animals are: koala, wombat, marsupial mole, and the thylacine. The thylacine (tassie tiger) is the odd one out in this list, since it isn't (wasn't) heavily built like the other three. As for convergent evolution (similar features evolving more than once), even the eye is thought to have evolved more than once: <ref>http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/abstract/14/8/1555</ref>. Apparently, the octopus design is slightly better than ours. 
::::Evolution describes the mechanics of how things came to be, not who did it or why. What you and I think about evolution is nowhere near as important as ensuring that conservapedia is trustworthy. I don't see how evolution is necessarily non-Christian, as the denominations of the majority of Christians accept evolution. As Pope Benedict says: "Truth does not speak against truth". Taking the line that most Christians follow would seem to be the conservative way to go, I think, unless by conservative you mean YE Creationist.[[User:Myrtle|Myrtle]] 21:52, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::What's "not-fully-formed" about the pouch of the echidna? In what respect is the pouch deficient in a way that is disadvantageous to the echidna?
:::::Genome analysis is a very new area of research. It can show differences between creatures, but cannot show how those differences came about over time, because they haven't been observed over time.
:::::Computers are almost essential to modern business, so it wouldn't really be a surprise if computers were found to have evolved (read: developed by chance processes with no intelligent input) multiple times. See how ridiculous that reasoning is?
:::::Yes, "convergent evolution" is rife, but "convergent evolution" is nothing more than a label for things that ''don't'' fit the evolutionary pattern of common features having evolved in a common ancestor. That is, it is an ad hoc "explanation" for evidence that contradicts the hypothesis.
:::::Evolution was designed as an explanation for how things came to be without a Designer; it implicitly says that there was ''not'' a "who". Evolution is anti-Christian because it is anti-biblical because it is contrary to the clear biblical account of all life being created in a period of six days. That many Christians accept this theory that was designed to explain things without God is something that should be taken up with them, because it is clearly contrary to the Bible
:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:57, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::Fine, let's agree to differ on our Biblical views. As for evolution, I never said the pouch was disadvantageous to the echidna, but it does give a hint that pouches may not have started with the full, deep pouch that a kangaroo has.
::::::No, convergent evolution is not a fudge regarding common ancestors. It means that selective pressures can produce similar results on different branches of the tree. You get the same thing in human cultures and ideas: different cultures developed different number systems independently, because being able to count is a useful thing.
::::::I maintain that conservative values embrace non-literal interpretations of Genesis, but even if that's wrong, it shouldn't necessarily impact on an article about wombats. You will notice that I am trying to improve the article, in a fair and balance way in accord with conservative principles. I am not a YEC, but I am not attacking those who are. Please accord me the same courtesy.[[User:Myrtle|Myrtle]] 03:41, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::You "differ" that the six days of creation are contradictory to evolution?
:::::::If the pouch is not disadvantageous, in what sense can it be described as "not fully formed"? If it has everything that the echidna needs, then surely it ''is'' a fully-formed echidna-type pouch? So I repeat, have you seen a pouch that is not fully formed?
:::::::The only reason it gives a hint as to how the pouch may have started is if one first ''assumes'' evolution. So a "not-fully-formed" pouch is ''not'' evidence for the evolutionary development of pouches if this "evidence" ''assumes'' evolution to start with. That's a circular argument.
:::::::Different cultures developed number systems by applying intelligence; this is rejected for evolution because it is supposed to be naturalistic, so that analogy doesn't apply. Apart from that, you have done nothing to support that convergent evolution is anything but an ''ad hoc'' explanation to explain evidence that is otherwise inconsistent with the evolutionary idea that features common to two or more creatures originated with the common ancestors of those creatures.
:::::::I do recognise and appreciate that you are being fair in the article. I'm only disagreeing with your comments on this talk page. I'm not attacking you or your edits to the article. Sorry if I'm coming over as being too abrupt.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:08, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I differ that "6 days" is the only Christian way to interpret the Bible. Of course "6 days" won't fit with evolution, this is one of the reasons Pope Benedict said "Truth does not speak against truth". Way back on this page, you asked me for the evolutionist view. I did some research, and tried to answer you as best I could, but I must say I wish I hadn't. [[User:Myrtle|Myrtle]] 06:02, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::I don't know of any Christian who understands the six days to mean anything other than six ordinary days ''except as a result of trying to make it fit with the secular view''. (See [[Old Earth Creationism#Criticism]].) The point is, the Bible is ''very'' clear about it being six days, and linguistically it can't mean anything else.
:::::::::As for the quote from Pope Benedict, if truth doesn't speak against truth, and one says six days and the other says millions of years, why is it that you (and so many others) take the millions of years literally rather than the six days?
:::::::::I asked you for the evolutionist view because you were trying to defend it. If you are unable to, that's fine, I don't expect you to do the impossible.
:::::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:43, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::How can anyone explain anything to you? You are right, it is impossible.[[User:Myrtle|Myrtle]] 07:52, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Wombat

2007-07-25T10:02:11Z

Myrtle: /* I would think… */

Talk:Wombat

2007-07-25T07:41:23Z

Myrtle: /* I would think… */

Wombat

2007-07-25T02:09:36Z

Myrtle: /* Evolutionary hypothesis */ Tightened up the prose a bit.

{{taxonomy
|name=Wombat
|image=Wombat-pic.jpg
|kingdom=Animalia
|phylum=Chordata
|class=Mammalia
|infraclass=Marsupialia
|order=Diprotodontia
|suborder=Vombatiformes
|family=Vombatidae
|genus=Vombatus
|species=ursinus
}}

== Description ==

'''Wombats''' are stocky, tailless, ursiform [[marsupial | marsupials]] of the [[Linnaean taxonomy | Linnaean taxonomic]] family ''Vombatidae''. They are nocturnal, walk on four short legs, like to burrow, and are herbivorous.

The common wombat (''Vombatus ursinus'') reaches about three feet in length and produces distinctive cubical scat<ref name="triggs">[http://dannyreviews.com/h/Wombat.html Review: ''The Wombat: Common Wombats in Australia'' by Barbara Triggs]</ref>. There are also two or three (depending on classification) rare species of hairy-nosed wombats of the genus ''Lasiorhinus''<ref>[http://www.wombania.com/wombats/hairy-nosed-wombat.htm Wombat Information Center: Hairy Nosed Wombat]</ref>.

One of the distinctive features of wombats is that their pouch opens towards the rear of the animal, like the koala, marsupial mole, and the now-considered-extinct thylacine (tasmanian tiger), but unlike most other marsupials<ref>http://www.parkweb.vic.gov.au/education/factfiles/03.htm</ref>. This may be to avoid the problem of the pouch filling with dirt whilst the animal is burrowing.

==Origins==

[[image:wombat_sign.jpg|thumb|150px|A road sign in [[Victoria]], Australia warning motorists of wombats]]
===Creationary hypothesis===

According to [[creationists]], representatives of the separately created wombat [[baraminology|archaebaramin]] were among those animals that migrated from the [[Middle East]] to [[Australia]] as part of the [[Post-Diluvian Diasporas]]. There is debate whether this migration happened over land<ref name="ca1">[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c006.html "How did animals get from the Ark to isolated places, such as Australia?"], ChristianAnswers.net.</ref> -- as Australia was still for a time almost connected to Europe by land bridges similar to the one that connected Asia to America<ref>Batten, Don, et. al., 207, ''The Creation Answers Book'', [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter17.pdf Chapter 17]</ref> -- or if they [[rafting (ecology) | rafted]] on mats of vegetation torn up by the receding flood waters.<ref name="ca1"/>
Creationists suggest that the rear-opening pouch provides strong evidence for the wombat's special creation.<ref>[http://www.icr.org/article/677/ "Watches and Wombats"], by Ken Ham, Institute for Creation Research</ref>.

===Evolutionary hypothesis===
Modern wombats belong to the order Diprotodontia (meaning two front teeth). It is thought that the common ancestors of wombats and [[kangaroo | kangaroos]] lived about 55-65 million years ago and that wombats are closely related to the [[koala]]<ref name="triggs"/>. This hypothesis is supported by [[mitochondria]]l genetic evidence as well as fossil evidence.<ref>Janke A et al. "Phylogenetic analysis of 18S rRNA and the mitochondrial genomes of the wombat, Vombatus ursinus, and the spiny anteater, Tachyglossus aculeatus: increased support for the Marsupionta hypothesis." (2002) Journal of molecular evolution 54:71-80. </ref>

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Marsupials]]
[[Category:Australia]]

Wombat

2007-07-25T01:56:37Z

Myrtle: /* Description */ added other animals with backward facing pouches

{{taxonomy
|name=Wombat
|image=Wombat-pic.jpg
|kingdom=Animalia
|phylum=Chordata
|class=Mammalia
|infraclass=Marsupialia
|order=Diprotodontia
|suborder=Vombatiformes
|family=Vombatidae
|genus=Vombatus
|species=ursinus
}}

== Description ==

'''Wombats''' are stocky, tailless, ursiform [[marsupial | marsupials]] of the [[Linnaean taxonomy | Linnaean taxonomic]] family ''Vombatidae''. They are nocturnal, walk on four short legs, like to burrow, and are herbivorous.

The common wombat (''Vombatus ursinus'') reaches about three feet in length and produces distinctive cubical scat<ref name="triggs">[http://dannyreviews.com/h/Wombat.html Review: ''The Wombat: Common Wombats in Australia'' by Barbara Triggs]</ref>. There are also two or three (depending on classification) rare species of hairy-nosed wombats of the genus ''Lasiorhinus''<ref>[http://www.wombania.com/wombats/hairy-nosed-wombat.htm Wombat Information Center: Hairy Nosed Wombat]</ref>.

One of the distinctive features of wombats is that their pouch opens towards the rear of the animal, like the koala, marsupial mole, and the now-considered-extinct thylacine (tasmanian tiger), but unlike most other marsupials<ref>http://www.parkweb.vic.gov.au/education/factfiles/03.htm</ref>. This may be to avoid the problem of the pouch filling with dirt whilst the animal is burrowing.

==Origins==

[[image:wombat_sign.jpg|thumb|150px|A road sign in [[Victoria]], Australia warning motorists of wombats]]
===Creationary hypothesis===

According to [[creationists]], representatives of the separately created wombat [[baraminology|archaebaramin]] were among those animals that migrated from the [[Middle East]] to [[Australia]] as part of the [[Post-Diluvian Diasporas]]. There is debate whether this migration happened over land<ref name="ca1">[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c006.html "How did animals get from the Ark to isolated places, such as Australia?"], ChristianAnswers.net.</ref> -- as Australia was still for a time almost connected to Europe by land bridges similar to the one that connected Asia to America<ref>Batten, Don, et. al., 207, ''The Creation Answers Book'', [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter17.pdf Chapter 17]</ref> -- or if they [[rafting (ecology) | rafted]] on mats of vegetation torn up by the receding flood waters.<ref name="ca1"/>
Creationists suggest that the rear-opening pouch provides strong evidence for the wombat's special creation.<ref>[http://www.icr.org/article/677/ "Watches and Wombats"], by Ken Ham, Institute for Creation Research</ref>.

===Evolutionary hypothesis===

Individuals who advocate the [[theory of evolution]] speculate that modern wombats evolved from Diprotodontians (the supposed common ancestors of wombats and [[kangaroo | kangaroos]]) about 55-65 million years ago and that they are closely related to the [[koala]]<ref name="triggs"/>. This hypothesis is supported by [[mitochondria]]l genetic evidence as well as fossil evidence.<ref>Janke A et al. "Phylogenetic analysis of 18S rRNA and the mitochondrial genomes of the wombat, Vombatus ursinus, and the spiny anteater, Tachyglossus aculeatus: increased support for the Marsupionta hypothesis." (2002) Journal of molecular evolution 54:71-80. </ref>

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Marsupials]]
[[Category:Australia]]

Talk:Wombat

2007-07-25T01:52:54Z

Myrtle: more on pouches

Talk:Wombat

2007-07-24T12:20:09Z

Myrtle: /* I would think… */

Wombat

2007-07-23T13:02:38Z

Myrtle: Tightened prose to reflect Ken Ham reference more accurately.

{{taxonomy
|name=Wombat
|image=Wombat-pic.jpg
|kingdom=Animalia
|phylum=Chordata
|class=Mammalia
|infraclass=Marsupialia
|order=Diprotodontia
|suborder=Vombatiformes
|family=Vombatidae
|genus=Vombatus
|species=ursinus
}}

== Description ==

'''Wombats''' are stocky, tailless, ursiform [[marsupial | marsupials]] of the [[Linnaean taxonomy | Linnaean taxonomic]] family ''Vombatidae''. They are nocturnal, walk on four short legs, like to burrow, and are herbivorous.

The common wombat (''Vombatus ursinus'') reaches about three feet in length and produces distinctive cubical scat<ref name="triggs">[http://dannyreviews.com/h/Wombat.html Review: ''The Wombat: Common Wombats in Australia'' by Barbara Triggs]</ref>. There are also two or three (depending on classification) rare species of hairy-nosed wombats of the genus ''Lasiorhinus''<ref>[http://www.wombania.com/wombats/hairy-nosed-wombat.htm Wombat Information Center: Hairy Nosed Wombat]</ref>.

One of the distinctive features of wombats is that their pouch opens towards the rear of the animal, like the koala<ref>http://www.parkweb.vic.gov.au/education/factfiles/03.htm</ref>, but unlike most other marsupials. This may be to avoid the problem of the pouch filling with dirt whilst the animal is burrowing.

==Origins==

[[image:wombat_sign.jpg|thumb|150px|A road sign in [[Victoria]], Australia warning motorists of wombats]]
===Creationary hypothesis===

According to [[creationists]], representatives of the separately created wombat [[baraminology|archaebaramin]] were among those animals that migrated from the [[Middle East]] to [[Australia]] as part of the [[Post-Diluvian Diasporas]]. There is debate whether this migration happened over land<ref name="ca1">[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c006.html "How did animals get from the Ark to isolated places, such as Australia?"], ChristianAnswers.net.</ref> -- as Australia was still for a time almost connected to Europe by land bridges similar to the one that connected Asia to America<ref>Batten, Don, et. al., 207, ''The Creation Answers Book'', [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter17.pdf Chapter 17]</ref> -- or if they [[rafting (ecology) | rafted]] on mats of vegetation torn up by the receding flood waters.<ref name="ca1"/>
Ken Ham suggests that the rear-opening pouch provides strong evidence for the wombat's special creation.<ref>[http://www.icr.org/article/677/ "Watches and Wombats"], by Ken Ham, Institute for Creation Research</ref>.

===Evolutionary hypothesis===

Individuals who advocate the [[theory of evolution]] speculate that modern wombats evolved from Diprotodontians (the supposed common ancestors of wombats and [[kangaroo | kangaroos]]) about 55-65 million years ago and that they are closely related to the [[koala]]<ref name="triggs"/>. This hypothesis is supported by [[mitochondria]]l genetic evidence as well as fossil evidence.<ref>Janke A et al. "Phylogenetic analysis of 18S rRNA and the mitochondrial genomes of the wombat, Vombatus ursinus, and the spiny anteater, Tachyglossus aculeatus: increased support for the Marsupionta hypothesis." (2002) Journal of molecular evolution 54:71-80. </ref>

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Marsupials]]
[[Category:Australia]]

Talk:Kangaroo

2007-07-20T21:31:07Z

Myrtle: /* Native?? */ thanks.

I think all of you ID proponents (creationists) should just ignore the fossil record, get your favorite version of the bible (I'm a King James lover myself), reread Genesis, and then stick your heads in the sand.--[[User:Darwinliveson|Darwinliveson]] 09:51, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Commandment 1 of this site is "what you post must be truthful and verifiable". Anyone with half a brain knows ID is utter bollocks.

I think we should include both creationist and evolutionist perspectives on kangaroo origins. Conservatives aren't monolithically creationist, and even if that were the case it'd be useful to at least be familiar with the other side's position. --[[User:John|John]] 22:26, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:The evolutionist perspective on kangaroo origins is speculative at best. A Google.com search for "kangaroo evolution" only shows up 221 results, most of which are people selling kangaroo meat! If you think you can explain just what their views are, you're welcome to try. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 02:28, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Well there might be slim pickings on the 221 google hits you ran....we might have better luck looking at the roughly 4,000 peer review journal articles on kangaroo and marsupial evolution from http://scholar.google.com [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 02:34, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=kangaroo+evolution+-rat&btnG=Search so we are on the same page. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 02:35, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::If the scientific perspective on kangaroo origins is "speculative", what does that make the religious perspective? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 05:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::The Truth, perhaps? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 06:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::Well, you are welcome to read through those to tease out the evolutionist perspective on kangaroo origins. Personally, I'd rather read through the [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?num=20&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22intelligent+design%22 7790 peer-reviewed articles] on Intelligent Design (which surely puts the lie to the claim of liberals that ID is not science) [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 06:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

The problem with your point above, Dr. Paley, is that all of those articles cited above were not "peer reviewed" by scientists - that is why ID is not a science. You let me know when the next ID article is published in ''Science'' or ''Nature''--[[User:Darwinliveson|Darwinliveson]] 09:51, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Bah! There is a MUCH easier way of settling this: [http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=kangaroo+evolution&word2=intelligent+design] ........hmmmm okay I guess I do loose. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 11:37, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::::On the other hand...[http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=kangaroo+evolution&word2=kangaroo+intelligent+design][[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Most of those are books, not peer reviewed papers. The rest appear to be about engineering, or pointing out the flaws in intelligent design as a biological mechanism (perhaps you should have read the papers before posting that?). Intelligent design proponents are old earth creationists, so they would state that the origins section as currently stands is incorrect. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:58, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:While some ID proponents may have old-earth leanings, Intelligent Design Theory itself is neutral to the age of the earth and merely proposes to detect evidences of intelligent design in life, not the history of the earth and creation. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 07:16, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::So you concede that "7790 peer-reviewed articles on intelligent design" is not an accurate statement? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 08:26, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::Tmtoulouse's link above to kangaroo evolution was claimed to be "roughly 4,000 peer review journal articles" but that number includes books and articles not actually about kangaroo evolution. I made my point clearly with the link to search results using an even more stringent criteria of putting quotes around the term. Nematocyte, if you are going to be so knee-jerk hostile to anyone who isn't an evolutionist, perhaps you should go back to Wikipedia. Also, I'm glad you concede your incorrectness about Intelligent Design Theory's earth-age relevance. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 11:27, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::: I'll presume that you are by this response agreeing that 7790 number is inaccurate. As to the kangaroo number, if you look through the actual citations in that google scholar search on the first page one has easily 3 or four relevant hits that are not books and a slightly larger number on the second page. If that continues one has presumably easily 300 peer reviewed sources. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:33, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::In fact I do not contest that ID is age-neutral. My claim was that ''proponents'' were old-earth creationist, and by "proponents" I mean those who seriously attempt to forward the theory in at least a superficially scientific manner, such as Behe and Dembski, both of whom are old-earthers. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:39, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::::What in the world does that have to do with anything I said above or the topic of kangaroo origins? Again, I think your anti-creation hostility is getting the best of your reason. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 11:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::::Dear Doctor, it related to your claim of the "7790" ID papers (which I take it you have retracted), and my assertation that those who did forward intelligent design would agree with me anyway. It appears you have no scientific base to speak of for your model of kangaroo origins.

:::::::Using the exact number 7790 was obviously in jest to point out the over-zealousness of the 4000 number. Were you not reading the light-hearted exchange between Tmtoulouse and myself above or were you just looking to pick nits (or a fight)? As to whether some ID proponents share with you errant views on the age of the earth and might speak outside of their specialty vis-à-vis kangaroo origins, that has nothing to do with anything preceding your assertion. Notice I referred to articles on "Intelligent Design", not "Intelligent Design proponents talking about something that isn't Intelligent Design". [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 12:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::::Incidently, are you the same Dr. Richard Paley I seem to recall reading an infamous article by extolling the evils of the Mac OS and Pokemon [[http://objectiveministries.org/creation/propaganda.html]]? I thought that was satire. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:22, 8 March 2007 (EST)

For the record I wasn't totally serious with my number claim, I was being facetious to make the point that google hits is not a good measure of the potential for information in an entry, and also that the places in which to get your in depth information for the evolution of kangaroos is not personal webpages but rather more scholarly sources, which are available. I think number games are silly, as I hope my google fight post above demonstrates. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 12:05, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Dr. Richard Paley is not a Doctor, and certainly not trustworthy if we're basing everything on Google searches: http://www.lies.com/wp/2002/04/22/dr-richard-paley-on-evolutionist-propaganda/ As a matter of fact he's a hoax, which sadly is very realistic on this site: http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/forum/forum_comments/1720/item.name

:I suspected he might have been a hoax when I found the article, but he still seems indistinguishable from many of the other contributors. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== "religious theories" ==

What is the point of the last paragraph on the kangaroo entry? Yes, australian aboriginal beliefs about the creation of the earth are religious in nature, but how is evolution a "religious theory"?

And more importantly, why can I not edit the page to remove this?

If this project is to be taken seriously, ridiculous comments like that need to be weeded out. [[User:dropkickmejesus|dropkickmejesus]] 22:21, 13 March 2007 (GMT)

:"Ridiculous comments like that" are preciesly what distinguish Conservapedia from pro-liberal sites like Wikipedia, and it's precisely why Conservapedia is so much better. We lack the bias that makes Wikipedia so unreliable. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 04:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Could you please explain to me why evolution should be considered a "religious theory". I note that the offending phrase has been removed. [[User:dropkickmejesus|dropkickmejesus]] 17:59, 14 March 2007 (GMT)

This is the worst website I have ever seen. Ever. Creationism is about as stupid an idea as eating your own sh**.

Actually, eating feces may be sensible in some situations. C. difficle infections due to shifts in colonic flora are a growning problem. In the past, fecal enemas from healthy donors were used. Currently, antibiotics are used. It has been proposed to feed people fecal emulsions to prevent or treat the infection. No, I am not making this up.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 23:38, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Kangaroo evolution - By 110 million years ago, mammals had diverged into two distinct groups, the placental mammals (a group that includes humans and most modern mammals) and the marsupial mammals (a group that includes koalas, kangaroos, wombats, and pouched mice). These groups evolved for millions of years in two increasingly different directions. As we follow the evolution of marsupials, we find their history to be further shaped by the drifting of the continents. The ancient landmasses of Laurasia and Gondwana broke apart to form the continents, isolating one group of marsupials on the continental island of Australia while isolating another group in South America. These separate populations of marsupials were left to evolve in parallel for some time.
Comparison reveals that, although placental and marsupial mammals formed seperate lineages, they still evolved similar adaptations. In some cases, placental and marsupial mammals physically resemble each other: the pouched marsupial mouse and the harvest mouse, the marsupial mole and the common mole, the marsupial wombat and the marmot, the tasmanian wolf and the wolf.--[[User:Joobs|Joobs]] 17:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

On the article, which seems to condemn the possibility of evolution, it states "Kangaroos have adapted to the varied conditions across Australia in many ways." Now, correct me if im mistaken but is adaption not just evolution, but on a smaller scale. Many many adaptions over millenia '''IS''' evolution, is it not?
Therefore if these kangaroos really did sail across on mats of vegetation and didnt evolve, how did they adapt to the conditions of australia?? Does anybody know?? {{unsigned|Loveandpeace}}

:No, adaptation is a built-in mechanism in the ''design'' of living creatures. Adaptation involves (mostly at least) an elimination of some genetic information (for example, the elimination of genes for short hair on creatures living in cold climates), allowing them to become more specialised. Goo-to-you evolution requires the ''addition'' of ''brand-new'' genetic information, which is a different thing entirely. Yes, evolutionists will equivocate and call adaptation evolution, but specialisation will not provide now organs, etc. for living things, so cannot result in the evolution of new kinds of creatures. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:05, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::Perhaps arguments would be clearer if you stuck to the mainstream definition. By the standard definition, adaptation ''is'' evolution. Larger changes over longer times are ''also'' evolution. If this adversion to the word "evolution" could be overcome then dialoge would be much easier. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:25, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::The problem is that the [[definition of evolution]] is so woolly it can cover almost anything. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:35, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== Space Ship Theory ==

I think the origin of the kangaroo should also include discussion of a belief held by many of Riley Martin's followers, the O-Qua Tangin Wann. They believe that Kangaroos originated from the "mothership" from the planet Tan. The alien visitors from Tan visited Earth a few hundred years ago and brought with them a male and female kangaroo. The "mothership" decided after visiting serveral continents that Australia was the best fit for their kangaroo species.

Lay off of the mushrooms. They're not good for you. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 04:48, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:If some conservatives believe it, we should give it equal time! --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 04:52, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:(And it's at least as believable as the idea that they migrated from the Middle East to Australia without ANY getting off along the way.)

::So your "suggestion" was just another jab at conservatives. Why are you even here, [[Scrap]]? Do you think that Conservapedia is just a dumping ground for your mean-spirited anti-Christian jokes? --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 05:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Of course it's not '''just''' for me to make bad jokes. It's '''also''' a source of ''unintentional'' hilarity, and a terrifying cautionary example of the perils of [[Groupthink]]. And I hardly think that was "mean-spirited", just really silly--I'd have to work mighty hard to out-crazy some of the "serious" posters here. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 05:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::::It is really funny. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 20:49, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== why is this page locked? ==

Why isn't anyone allowed to edit this page?
Can't an Australian even make some constributions about an animal in his own country?

Apparently the origins of the kangaroo are a hot button issue. How informational will an encyclopedia be where any animal entry says "As with all animals, Noah brought them all on an ark impossibly small to hold them all... blah blah blah...." --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 20:48, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Land Bridge from Europe to Australia was not in any sources. ==

Land Bridge from Europe to Australia was not in any sources. Please keep that out in the future. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:The reference to "land-bridges" was added by someone, who is apparently confused, to replace the reference to the [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2808 catastrophic continental drift theory]. Please keep that in in the future. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 15:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

It should be noted that this page is all speculation.

== Native?? ==
How can something be "now native"? Native refers to where something came from. If you're going with the normal evolution thought, then they are native to Australia. If you're going with the tale that they came from the Mid-East, then they are native to the Mid-East (or ideally where they came before the flood, which could be australia). [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 13:07, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Evolutionists hold that ''all'' animals are non-native to the place they are currently living since they have been scurrying about for billions of years transmogrifying themselves into different things. "Now native" allows for both the Darwinian and Biblical views, as it expresses the idea that kangaroos have been habituated to Australia for thousands of years. This is a reasonable compromise, except apparently to the Darwinists who want to turn Conservapedia into Wikipedia through a slow death of a thousand cuts. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 15:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm fairly certain that "transmogrifying" comes from Calvin and Hobbes and isn't even remotely the same as evolution. Why are people like the good Dr. here always confused as to the actual definition of evolution? It is simply the slow change of organisms over the course of time based on which organisms are most successful at passing on their genes to the next generation. It's not like a whole different creature is born and it's a new species. It's slow genetic recombination and drift. That's all. WHY is that so hard for people to grasp? Anyhow, it just frustrates me that so many people in America are perfectly happy not understanding the world around them. The US is getting further and further behind the rest of the world. It's like we're backsliding and not even trying to regain our footing. Perhaps one day Doctors will be able to refuse antibiotics to people who don't believe in evolution. Those newly evolved bacteria can just wipe out all the stubborn creationists who refuse to believe that evolution can happen and is all around them. {{unsigned|Quisculus}}
:::Please read [[Definitions of evolution]]; evolution is not just a change in organisms. Perhaps America is losing ground because it has forgotten/rejected much of its Christian heritage that gave the world things like [[physical science#Beginnings|science]]? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:43, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
:I agree, "now native" seems to be a contradiction in terms, and thus a joke. If it is left, it needs to be explained that native to a place means "has lived there for a long time" rather than "originated in". For Australian animals, this is a particularly important idea. [[User:Myrtle|Myrtle]] 01:06, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
::I've changed it to eliminate the word entirely (what do you think?), although the word "native" is interesting. It's definitions include "being such by origin", which in effect assumes an evolutionary history, but which I doubt is always strictly applied anyway (e.g. the platypus would probably be considered native to Australia, even though fossil evidence shows that they existed in South America, which makes one wonder just what the evolutionary origin point was). Another definition (admittedly not strictly applicable here) is "being or composed of people inhabiting a region from the beginning (Example: "''Native Americans''")", which begs the question, "the beginning of what?", and suggests that the word does not strictly have to mean from the beginning of (a) the continent of America, or (b) the beginning of humanity. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
:::It reads much better now, thanks. Origin questions can get a bit controversial; e.g. the native Americans consider that they have always been there, although others may think otherwise.[[User:Myrtle|Myrtle]] 17:31, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

== Genetic bottleneck ==

I know what a genetic bottleneck is, but I don't know what evidence it would leave. Could someone enlighten me before I remove that new bit about there being no evidence that kangaroos have been through a genetic bottleneck? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:11, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
:I think the evidence it would leave would be a close genetic similarity between all members of a particular species. I think [[cheetah]]s went through a genetic bottleneck once, according to a documentary I saw, - although if the Noah story is true, so did every species...
[http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s40791.htm cheetah genetic bottleneck in plain english]
[http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/90/8/3172.pdf the same in scientific terms]
[[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 14:05, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::A "genetic bottleneck" occurs when a certain species experiences an event that causes the entire species population to go nearly extinct. It can occur during processes of natural speciation (when few members of the population separate and start their own population) or from the introduction of a new natural predator. What happens is that after the near extinction event, the population gradually goes larger until eventually there are many more individuals and there is a substantial, self-sustaining species. We know that a genetic bottleneck has occurred, for example, in cheetahs because every animal has a very similar genetic make-up, which indicates that the entire cheetah species as we know it today originated from only a few individuals. This is also why cheetahs are generally prone to many familial conditions that result from inbreeding between genetically similar individuals. This last post is right to assume that if the story of Noah's arc were true, all species on this planet would exhibit similar genetic patterns. After all, what the Bible says is that Noah brought two of every animal on the arc and the rest drowned in the great floor. However, this is entirely not the case. Humans, for example, are by far the most diverse species on the planet due to the ease of international travel and mixing of different nationalities over the course of time. There are also 300,000 different varieties of beetles on this planet. Dogs and horses are just two more examples of species that maintain great genetic diversity, mostly through human intervention over thousands of years. Just another example of where the Bible got it wrong. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/bottleneck.html

:However, I know very little about the evolution of kangaroos. It sounds plausible, though, that a few kangaroos may have repopulated the entire species following the continental drift that separated Australia from the mainland.
:{{unsigned|Wagnerpe}}

::I should have realised the answer to this before. These explanations presume that the species that we have today are exactly the same as those that came off the ark. But that is not the model. Take canines, for example. On the ark would have been two of the canine [[baramin|kind]], and from that the various species and varieties of dogs and other canines have developed. That is, the two canines on the ark had all the genetic potential found in wolves, dogs, etc. today. The same would have applied for the kangaroo kind; there would have been a pair of "roo kind" on the ark, and from that have developed red kangaroos, grey kangaroos, wallabies, etc. So there is no "evidence" of a genetic bottleneck in the form of limited genetic variability simply because the specimens on the ark were not of limited genetic potential. Cheetahs obviously went through a genetic bottleneck ''after'' they became highly specialised (i.e. of limited variability), unlike the creatures on the ark.
::So much for the claim that the Bible got it wrong! And beetles could have survived off the ark, on floating mats of vegetation, so that's irrelevant to this discussion.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:43, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

==Rarely fossilize==
Darwindude ... please cite your sources before adding information. It may be true, but you need to show that. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 21:11, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Wombat

2007-07-20T05:17:43Z

Myrtle: /* Description */ pouch faces backwards like the koala

{{taxonomy
|name=Wombat
|image=Wombat-pic.jpg
|kingdom=Animalia
|phylum=Chordata
|class=Mammalia
|infraclass=Marsupialia
|order=Diprotodontia
|suborder=Vombatiformes
|family=Vombatidae
|genus=Vombatus
|species=ursinus
}}

== Description ==

'''Wombats''' are stocky, tailless, ursiform [[marsupial | marsupials]] of the [[Linnaean taxonomy | Linnaean taxonomic]] family ''Vombatidae''. They are nocturnal, walk on four short legs, like to burrow, and are herbivorous.

The common wombat (''Vombatus ursinus'') reaches about three feet in length and produces distinctive cubical scat<ref name="triggs">[http://dannyreviews.com/h/Wombat.html Review: ''The Wombat: Common Wombats in Australia'' by Barbara Triggs]</ref>. There are also two or three (depending on classification) rare species of hairy-nosed wombats of the genus ''Lasiorhinus''<ref>[http://www.wombania.com/wombats/hairy-nosed-wombat.htm Wombat Information Center: Hairy Nosed Wombat]</ref>.

One of the distinctive features of wombats is that their pouch opens towards the rear of the animal, like the koala<ref>http://www.parkweb.vic.gov.au/education/factfiles/03.htm</ref>, but unlike most other marsupials. This may avoid the problem of the pouch filling with dirt whilst the animal is burrowing.

==Origins==

[[image:wombat_sign.jpg|thumb|150px|A road sign in [[Victoria]], Australia warning motorists of wombats]]
===Creationary hypothesis===

According to many [[creationists]], representatives of the separately created wombat [[baraminology|archaebaramin]] were among those animals that migrated from the [[Middle East]] to [[Australia]] as part of the [[Post-Diluvian Diasporas]]. There is debate whether this migration happened over land<ref name="ca1">[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c006.html "How did animals get from the Ark to isolated places, such as Australia?"], ChristianAnswers.net.</ref> -- as Australia was still for a time almost connected to Europe by land bridges similar to the one that connected Asia to America<ref>Batten, Don, et. al., 207, ''The Creation Answers Book'', [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter17.pdf Chapter 17]</ref> -- or if they [[rafting (ecology) | rafted]] on mats of vegetation torn up by the receding flood waters.<ref name="ca1"/>
Creation researchers suggest that the wombat-specific design of its rear-opening pouch provides strong evidence for the wombat's special creation and against the evolutionists' Diprotodontian theory of wombat/kangaroo common ancestry<ref>[http://www.icr.org/article/677/ "Watches and Wombats"], by Ken Ham, Institute for Creation Research</ref>.

===Evolutionary hypothesis===

Individuals who advocate the [[theory of evolution]] speculate that modern wombats evolved from Diprotodontians (the supposed common ancestors of wombats and [[kangaroo | kangaroos]]) about 55-65 million years ago and that they are closely related to the [[koala]]<ref name="triggs"/>. This hypothesis is supported by [[mitochondria]]l genetic evidence as well as fossil evidence.<ref>Janke A et al. "Phylogenetic analysis of 18S rRNA and the mitochondrial genomes of the wombat, Vombatus ursinus, and the spiny anteater, Tachyglossus aculeatus: increased support for the Marsupionta hypothesis." (2002) Journal of molecular evolution 54:71-80. </ref>

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Marsupials]]
[[Category:Australia]]

Talk:Kangaroo

2007-07-20T05:06:08Z

Myrtle: /* Native?? */" now native" is a contradiction in terms.

I think all of you ID proponents (creationists) should just ignore the fossil record, get your favorite version of the bible (I'm a King James lover myself), reread Genesis, and then stick your heads in the sand.--[[User:Darwinliveson|Darwinliveson]] 09:51, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Commandment 1 of this site is "what you post must be truthful and verifiable". Anyone with half a brain knows ID is utter bollocks.

I think we should include both creationist and evolutionist perspectives on kangaroo origins. Conservatives aren't monolithically creationist, and even if that were the case it'd be useful to at least be familiar with the other side's position. --[[User:John|John]] 22:26, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:The evolutionist perspective on kangaroo origins is speculative at best. A Google.com search for "kangaroo evolution" only shows up 221 results, most of which are people selling kangaroo meat! If you think you can explain just what their views are, you're welcome to try. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 02:28, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Well there might be slim pickings on the 221 google hits you ran....we might have better luck looking at the roughly 4,000 peer review journal articles on kangaroo and marsupial evolution from http://scholar.google.com [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 02:34, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=kangaroo+evolution+-rat&btnG=Search so we are on the same page. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 02:35, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::If the scientific perspective on kangaroo origins is "speculative", what does that make the religious perspective? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 05:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::The Truth, perhaps? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 06:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::Well, you are welcome to read through those to tease out the evolutionist perspective on kangaroo origins. Personally, I'd rather read through the [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?num=20&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22intelligent+design%22 7790 peer-reviewed articles] on Intelligent Design (which surely puts the lie to the claim of liberals that ID is not science) [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 06:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

The problem with your point above, Dr. Paley, is that all of those articles cited above were not "peer reviewed" by scientists - that is why ID is not a science. You let me know when the next ID article is published in ''Science'' or ''Nature''--[[User:Darwinliveson|Darwinliveson]] 09:51, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Bah! There is a MUCH easier way of settling this: [http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=kangaroo+evolution&word2=intelligent+design] ........hmmmm okay I guess I do loose. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 11:37, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::::On the other hand...[http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=kangaroo+evolution&word2=kangaroo+intelligent+design][[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Most of those are books, not peer reviewed papers. The rest appear to be about engineering, or pointing out the flaws in intelligent design as a biological mechanism (perhaps you should have read the papers before posting that?). Intelligent design proponents are old earth creationists, so they would state that the origins section as currently stands is incorrect. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:58, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:While some ID proponents may have old-earth leanings, Intelligent Design Theory itself is neutral to the age of the earth and merely proposes to detect evidences of intelligent design in life, not the history of the earth and creation. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 07:16, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::So you concede that "7790 peer-reviewed articles on intelligent design" is not an accurate statement? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 08:26, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::Tmtoulouse's link above to kangaroo evolution was claimed to be "roughly 4,000 peer review journal articles" but that number includes books and articles not actually about kangaroo evolution. I made my point clearly with the link to search results using an even more stringent criteria of putting quotes around the term. Nematocyte, if you are going to be so knee-jerk hostile to anyone who isn't an evolutionist, perhaps you should go back to Wikipedia. Also, I'm glad you concede your incorrectness about Intelligent Design Theory's earth-age relevance. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 11:27, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::: I'll presume that you are by this response agreeing that 7790 number is inaccurate. As to the kangaroo number, if you look through the actual citations in that google scholar search on the first page one has easily 3 or four relevant hits that are not books and a slightly larger number on the second page. If that continues one has presumably easily 300 peer reviewed sources. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:33, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::In fact I do not contest that ID is age-neutral. My claim was that ''proponents'' were old-earth creationist, and by "proponents" I mean those who seriously attempt to forward the theory in at least a superficially scientific manner, such as Behe and Dembski, both of whom are old-earthers. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:39, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::::What in the world does that have to do with anything I said above or the topic of kangaroo origins? Again, I think your anti-creation hostility is getting the best of your reason. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 11:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::::Dear Doctor, it related to your claim of the "7790" ID papers (which I take it you have retracted), and my assertation that those who did forward intelligent design would agree with me anyway. It appears you have no scientific base to speak of for your model of kangaroo origins.

:::::::Using the exact number 7790 was obviously in jest to point out the over-zealousness of the 4000 number. Were you not reading the light-hearted exchange between Tmtoulouse and myself above or were you just looking to pick nits (or a fight)? As to whether some ID proponents share with you errant views on the age of the earth and might speak outside of their specialty vis-à-vis kangaroo origins, that has nothing to do with anything preceding your assertion. Notice I referred to articles on "Intelligent Design", not "Intelligent Design proponents talking about something that isn't Intelligent Design". [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 12:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::::Incidently, are you the same Dr. Richard Paley I seem to recall reading an infamous article by extolling the evils of the Mac OS and Pokemon [[http://objectiveministries.org/creation/propaganda.html]]? I thought that was satire. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:22, 8 March 2007 (EST)

For the record I wasn't totally serious with my number claim, I was being facetious to make the point that google hits is not a good measure of the potential for information in an entry, and also that the places in which to get your in depth information for the evolution of kangaroos is not personal webpages but rather more scholarly sources, which are available. I think number games are silly, as I hope my google fight post above demonstrates. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 12:05, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Dr. Richard Paley is not a Doctor, and certainly not trustworthy if we're basing everything on Google searches: http://www.lies.com/wp/2002/04/22/dr-richard-paley-on-evolutionist-propaganda/ As a matter of fact he's a hoax, which sadly is very realistic on this site: http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/forum/forum_comments/1720/item.name

:I suspected he might have been a hoax when I found the article, but he still seems indistinguishable from many of the other contributors. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== "religious theories" ==

What is the point of the last paragraph on the kangaroo entry? Yes, australian aboriginal beliefs about the creation of the earth are religious in nature, but how is evolution a "religious theory"?

And more importantly, why can I not edit the page to remove this?

If this project is to be taken seriously, ridiculous comments like that need to be weeded out. [[User:dropkickmejesus|dropkickmejesus]] 22:21, 13 March 2007 (GMT)

:"Ridiculous comments like that" are preciesly what distinguish Conservapedia from pro-liberal sites like Wikipedia, and it's precisely why Conservapedia is so much better. We lack the bias that makes Wikipedia so unreliable. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 04:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Could you please explain to me why evolution should be considered a "religious theory". I note that the offending phrase has been removed. [[User:dropkickmejesus|dropkickmejesus]] 17:59, 14 March 2007 (GMT)

This is the worst website I have ever seen. Ever. Creationism is about as stupid an idea as eating your own sh**.

Actually, eating feces may be sensible in some situations. C. difficle infections due to shifts in colonic flora are a growning problem. In the past, fecal enemas from healthy donors were used. Currently, antibiotics are used. It has been proposed to feed people fecal emulsions to prevent or treat the infection. No, I am not making this up.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 23:38, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Kangaroo evolution - By 110 million years ago, mammals had diverged into two distinct groups, the placental mammals (a group that includes humans and most modern mammals) and the marsupial mammals (a group that includes koalas, kangaroos, wombats, and pouched mice). These groups evolved for millions of years in two increasingly different directions. As we follow the evolution of marsupials, we find their history to be further shaped by the drifting of the continents. The ancient landmasses of Laurasia and Gondwana broke apart to form the continents, isolating one group of marsupials on the continental island of Australia while isolating another group in South America. These separate populations of marsupials were left to evolve in parallel for some time.
Comparison reveals that, although placental and marsupial mammals formed seperate lineages, they still evolved similar adaptations. In some cases, placental and marsupial mammals physically resemble each other: the pouched marsupial mouse and the harvest mouse, the marsupial mole and the common mole, the marsupial wombat and the marmot, the tasmanian wolf and the wolf.--[[User:Joobs|Joobs]] 17:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

On the article, which seems to condemn the possibility of evolution, it states "Kangaroos have adapted to the varied conditions across Australia in many ways." Now, correct me if im mistaken but is adaption not just evolution, but on a smaller scale. Many many adaptions over millenia '''IS''' evolution, is it not?
Therefore if these kangaroos really did sail across on mats of vegetation and didnt evolve, how did they adapt to the conditions of australia?? Does anybody know?? {{unsigned|Loveandpeace}}

:No, adaptation is a built-in mechanism in the ''design'' of living creatures. Adaptation involves (mostly at least) an elimination of some genetic information (for example, the elimination of genes for short hair on creatures living in cold climates), allowing them to become more specialised. Goo-to-you evolution requires the ''addition'' of ''brand-new'' genetic information, which is a different thing entirely. Yes, evolutionists will equivocate and call adaptation evolution, but specialisation will not provide now organs, etc. for living things, so cannot result in the evolution of new kinds of creatures. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:05, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::Perhaps arguments would be clearer if you stuck to the mainstream definition. By the standard definition, adaptation ''is'' evolution. Larger changes over longer times are ''also'' evolution. If this adversion to the word "evolution" could be overcome then dialoge would be much easier. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:25, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::The problem is that the [[definition of evolution]] is so woolly it can cover almost anything. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:35, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== Space Ship Theory ==

I think the origin of the kangaroo should also include discussion of a belief held by many of Riley Martin's followers, the O-Qua Tangin Wann. They believe that Kangaroos originated from the "mothership" from the planet Tan. The alien visitors from Tan visited Earth a few hundred years ago and brought with them a male and female kangaroo. The "mothership" decided after visiting serveral continents that Australia was the best fit for their kangaroo species.

Lay off of the mushrooms. They're not good for you. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 04:48, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:If some conservatives believe it, we should give it equal time! --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 04:52, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:(And it's at least as believable as the idea that they migrated from the Middle East to Australia without ANY getting off along the way.)

::So your "suggestion" was just another jab at conservatives. Why are you even here, [[Scrap]]? Do you think that Conservapedia is just a dumping ground for your mean-spirited anti-Christian jokes? --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 05:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Of course it's not '''just''' for me to make bad jokes. It's '''also''' a source of ''unintentional'' hilarity, and a terrifying cautionary example of the perils of [[Groupthink]]. And I hardly think that was "mean-spirited", just really silly--I'd have to work mighty hard to out-crazy some of the "serious" posters here. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 05:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::::It is really funny. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 20:49, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== why is this page locked? ==

Why isn't anyone allowed to edit this page?
Can't an Australian even make some constributions about an animal in his own country?

Apparently the origins of the kangaroo are a hot button issue. How informational will an encyclopedia be where any animal entry says "As with all animals, Noah brought them all on an ark impossibly small to hold them all... blah blah blah...." --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 20:48, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Land Bridge from Europe to Australia was not in any sources. ==

Land Bridge from Europe to Australia was not in any sources. Please keep that out in the future. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:The reference to "land-bridges" was added by someone, who is apparently confused, to replace the reference to the [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2808 catastrophic continental drift theory]. Please keep that in in the future. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 15:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

It should be noted that this page is all speculation.

== Native?? ==
How can something be "now native"? Native refers to where something came from. If you're going with the normal evolution thought, then they are native to Australia. If you're going with the tale that they came from the Mid-East, then they are native to the Mid-East (or ideally where they came before the flood, which could be australia). [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 13:07, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Evolutionists hold that ''all'' animals are non-native to the place they are currently living since they have been scurrying about for billions of years transmogrifying themselves into different things. "Now native" allows for both the Darwinian and Biblical views, as it expresses the idea that kangaroos have been habituated to Australia for thousands of years. This is a reasonable compromise, except apparently to the Darwinists who want to turn Conservapedia into Wikipedia through a slow death of a thousand cuts. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 15:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm fairly certain that "transmogrifying" comes from Calvin and Hobbes and isn't even remotely the same as evolution. Why are people like the good Dr. here always confused as to the actual definition of evolution? It is simply the slow change of organisms over the course of time based on which organisms are most successful at passing on their genes to the next generation. It's not like a whole different creature is born and it's a new species. It's slow genetic recombination and drift. That's all. WHY is that so hard for people to grasp? Anyhow, it just frustrates me that so many people in America are perfectly happy not understanding the world around them. The US is getting further and further behind the rest of the world. It's like we're backsliding and not even trying to regain our footing. Perhaps one day Doctors will be able to refuse antibiotics to people who don't believe in evolution. Those newly evolved bacteria can just wipe out all the stubborn creationists who refuse to believe that evolution can happen and is all around them. {{unsigned|Quisculus}}
:::Please read [[Definitions of evolution]]; evolution is not just a change in organisms. Perhaps America is losing ground because it has forgotten/rejected much of its Christian heritage that gave the world things like [[physical science#Beginnings|science]]? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:43, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
:I agree, "now native" seems to be a contradiction in terms, and thus a joke. If it is left, it needs to be explained that native to a place means "has lived there for a long time" rather than "originated in". For Australian animals, this is a particularly important idea. [[User:Myrtle|Myrtle]] 01:06, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

== Genetic bottleneck ==

I know what a genetic bottleneck is, but I don't know what evidence it would leave. Could someone enlighten me before I remove that new bit about there being no evidence that kangaroos have been through a genetic bottleneck? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:11, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
:I think the evidence it would leave would be a close genetic similarity between all members of a particular species. I think [[cheetah]]s went through a genetic bottleneck once, according to a documentary I saw, - although if the Noah story is true, so did every species...
[http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s40791.htm cheetah genetic bottleneck in plain english]
[http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/90/8/3172.pdf the same in scientific terms]
[[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 14:05, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::A "genetic bottleneck" occurs when a certain species experiences an event that causes the entire species population to go nearly extinct. It can occur during processes of natural speciation (when few members of the population separate and start their own population) or from the introduction of a new natural predator. What happens is that after the near extinction event, the population gradually goes larger until eventually there are many more individuals and there is a substantial, self-sustaining species. We know that a genetic bottleneck has occurred, for example, in cheetahs because every animal has a very similar genetic make-up, which indicates that the entire cheetah species as we know it today originated from only a few individuals. This is also why cheetahs are generally prone to many familial conditions that result from inbreeding between genetically similar individuals. This last post is right to assume that if the story of Noah's arc were true, all species on this planet would exhibit similar genetic patterns. After all, what the Bible says is that Noah brought two of every animal on the arc and the rest drowned in the great floor. However, this is entirely not the case. Humans, for example, are by far the most diverse species on the planet due to the ease of international travel and mixing of different nationalities over the course of time. There are also 300,000 different varieties of beetles on this planet. Dogs and horses are just two more examples of species that maintain great genetic diversity, mostly through human intervention over thousands of years. Just another example of where the Bible got it wrong. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/bottleneck.html

:However, I know very little about the evolution of kangaroos. It sounds plausible, though, that a few kangaroos may have repopulated the entire species following the continental drift that separated Australia from the mainland.
:{{unsigned|Wagnerpe}}

::I should have realised the answer to this before. These explanations presume that the species that we have today are exactly the same as those that came off the ark. But that is not the model. Take canines, for example. On the ark would have been two of the canine [[baramin|kind]], and from that the various species and varieties of dogs and other canines have developed. That is, the two canines on the ark had all the genetic potential found in wolves, dogs, etc. today. The same would have applied for the kangaroo kind; there would have been a pair of "roo kind" on the ark, and from that have developed red kangaroos, grey kangaroos, wallabies, etc. So there is no "evidence" of a genetic bottleneck in the form of limited genetic variability simply because the specimens on the ark were not of limited genetic potential. Cheetahs obviously went through a genetic bottleneck ''after'' they became highly specialised (i.e. of limited variability), unlike the creatures on the ark.
::So much for the claim that the Bible got it wrong! And beetles could have survived off the ark, on floating mats of vegetation, so that's irrelevant to this discussion.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:43, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

==Rarely fossilize==
Darwindude ... please cite your sources before adding information. It may be true, but you need to show that. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 21:11, 12 May 2007 (EDT)