::::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.<br><br>
::::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)