Hard to believe this guy has a PhD! Thanks for taking the time to take us through this point by point.
I get a bunch of 404 errors when I click on the links…
re. the broken links, the subdirectory /cgh/ is missing from the path on all but the first two links (until the links are fixed, you can find the documents by manually adding /cgh/ after /images/ in the URLs).
I wonder why Hunter did not use just one of the pictures to clame that the two species are so similar that they can not be distingished.
It is strange that evolutionists never get around to addressing…
It is strange the Hunter never gets around to addressing the charge about his using two copies of the same image.
Actually, you can find Hunter admitting a mistake in use of the same image twice.
Every time they through out the ‘problem for evolution’ or ‘science can’t explain’ cards someone comes along with the left bower and takes the trick.
It just goes to show that they never let a fact stand in the way of an opinion.
I did some google image searching for the thylacine image(s) that Hunter used in his presentation. I think I may have found them.
The image on the left can be viewed here:
The one on the right can be viewed here:
Interestingly, the version of the image that Hunter labeled as a “wolf” clearly has the scientific name “THYLACINUS CYNOCEPHALUS” at the bottom along with some other writing that I could not decipher. The version of the image that Hunter labeled as a “Tasmanian wolf” has apparently been cropped to remove the writing.
In the interest of fairness, it should be pointed out that Hunter did include an accurate comparison of the thylacine and wolf in the image immediately below the one in question. You can see a clearer view of that image here:
I did not copy one image, reverse it, and desaturate it (why wouldn’t I have done that with the others?).
Both wolf images were straight off the web, and in my hasty collection of marsupial and placental examples I accidentally got a marsupial wolf graphic confused as a placental.
Sure; it was accidentally the same image, flipped and saturation-modified. Are we really expected to believe that?
This is a lose-lose proposition for Hunter. If he admits that he should have been able to tell the images apart, he weakens his argument that the wolf and thylacine are nearly indistinguishable.
Thanks. I had wondered where that variant might have come from.
Seems to me like a past publication from berkley assesses the situation congruently with Hunter: http://ib.berkeley.edu/courses/ib160/biogeographyofevolution.ppt#33
Not hardly. The slide discusses homoplasy and does not advocate that thylacine and wolf share a niche because they were specially created that way.
Comments are closed.