Another Example of Lineage-Specific Biology
Here is a video of Saltoblattella montistabularis, the only leaping cockroach of four thousand species of the unloved insect. The cockroach uses complex spring-loaded hind legs, with “grooved femora into which the tibiae engage fully in advance of a jump,” to accelerate at 23 g’s and out jump even grass hoppers. This tremendous leaping ability is quite useful in its native environment of tall sedge grass in South Africa. So naturally, that is why it evolved its leaping ability, as a researcher explained:
They’re in a vertically stratified environment. It’s awfully tough to get up and down [in sedge grass], so leaproaches evolved to do what grasshoppers do — jump between stems.
But that raises an interesting question. For as everyone knows, evolution has no foresight and there are no final causes. The researcher’s teleological language was merely figurative. The leaproach did not evolve “to do” anything. It was all just by chance.
What the evolutionist intended to convey is that the leaproach just happened to undergo a series of random mutations which together conferred its fantastic leaping design and ability which was then selected for because it was so advantageous.
But is this teleological language, which is rampant in the evolutionary literature and first noticed by Adam Sedgwick, merely for brevity? Is it nothing more than scientific shorthand?
We ask because every time it is said that evolution at one time evolved yet another peculiar and advanced design in one particular species which was then selected due to the one particular environment, it is therefore implied that evolution is at all times evolving most all designs in most all species in most all environments.
We just don’t know it because most of those designs were not selected because they were not advantageous at those times for those species in those environments.
In other words, evolution must be a hyperactive creator.
This must be true because otherwise we would have to say that evolution just happened to create only the advantageous designs at the right times, for the right species in the right environments.
And that would imply foresight, teleology and final causes, which we all know do not exist.
So the rampant use of teleological language might not be merely for brevity. It might not be nothing more than scientific shorthand. Perhaps the teleological language is rampant because, well, it sounds better.
Oh and one other thing. The leaproach’s fantastic design shows “remarkable convergence” with design of the grasshopper “with whom they share their habitat.” Just saying …
CH: The leaproach’s fantastic design shows “remarkable convergence” with design of the grasshopper “with whom they share their habitat.”
ReplyDeleteJS: It must be a case of horizontal transfer, then, eh? :)
Of course, this just pushes the problem back to how that mechanism of DNA incorporation arose without direction in the posited time-frame, like all other such mechanisms that seem necessary for survival and limited evolution.
But why do we need a plausible naturalistic explanation when everyone knows libertarian free-will doesn't even exist. And everyone knows that beings who have no libertarian free-will just coincidentally think aright deterministically. Yes, that's right, even though this "means"(if memory occurs) that contradictory beliefs are true so long as they are deterministically caused (or even uncaused--just not teleologically caused!).
One can only marvel at such irrationality.
They will say it is thousands, if not millions, of trial and error attempts. Some results are good and get kept and others not so good and get discarded.
ReplyDeleteWe just don't understand the time and the number of trials.
And "they" don't understand that their just-so story is untestable and therefor not science.
How would your theory explain the presence of the leaping roach? Is it a separate"kind"? How many " kinds" of insects are there? Any non just so answers will be appreciated.
DeleteThat it is here by design as opposed to sheer dumb luck.
DeleteSo I take that as "I have no idea". Good strategy, poor science.
DeleteYour entire position = "I have no idea"
DeleteFunny but evasive
DeleteAll you are is evasive. It ain't so fun when people hit you back with it, is it?
Delete
DeleteLOL! Chubs, you sure make a great spokesman for Intelligent Design Creationism.
LoL! Intelligent Design Creationism only exists in the minds of the willfully ignorant. And here you are....
DeleteV, if someone says, "I went to the grocery store to get some milk," am I obliged to explain that in terms of physics and chemistry to believe that? Is it really irrational to believe that mental states, including intentions and choices, are causal in a directional way?
DeleteSure, there are underlying physical and chemical causes as well that serve as means to ends. But that doesn't mean the mental states are not truly just as necessary to the effects as are the blind "means."
Take away the mental states, and, per the inference of most people, the effect wouldn't have happened in those cases. ID inferences, like blind, efficient causal inferences, are just inferences, not observations. We can't prove or observe that even one event is caused.
You might ask, "what does teleological inference buy us?" Like QT, it puts BOUNDS on what is possible to believe with warrant and plausibility even when it can't predict with the precision of really good naturalistic theories. Without these bounds supplied by teleological constraints, human and animal behavior would seem completely arbitrary to us. It's not like we've had, throughout human history, anything LIKE a significantly predictive a-teleological theory that explains specific events of human and animal behavior.
But teleology allows us to explain FACETS of that behavior. And that allows us to make actual distinctions between pathological behavior and non-pathological behavior, e.g. Such distinctions would be impossible apart from the inferred causal role of mind and, by implication, pleasure-oriented/pain-averse teleology.
Never mind that inductive criteria wouldn't even be used by humas if they had no correlation to our own pleasure-oriented/pain-averse teleological mode of life.
DeleteJoe,
DeleteAll you are is evasive. It ain't so fun when people hit you back with it, is it?
Then you have no reason to complain, it is easy,is the roach a different kind than 3,999 other roaches. If you are sure that ToE is wrong,then what is right? Why did the designer violate the law of common design? How did the designer implement the change? When? Why only in Africa if this was common design? How does change in enviroment affect common design?
There is no known LAW of common design. There are known cases of common design. As for change in environment, there can be EITHER designed environmental feed-back mechanisms OR direct teleological tweaking OR a combination of the two that would render the effect teleological.
DeleteV, teleologists don't have to explain things specifically if a-teleologists don't. THAT'S THE POINT. All we have to do is demonstrate that current theory doesn't ELIMINATE the possibility that appearance of design INDICATES design. And naturalists have done no such thing yet.
Jeff,
DeleteV, if someone says, "I went to the grocery store to get some milk," am I obliged to explain that in terms of physics and chemistry to believe that?
Nope,humans are known to have that ability. If he added that he teleported to the store to get milk, then yes it would require more evidence than taking a car.
Is it really irrational to believe that mental states, including intentions and choices, are causal in a directional way?
Of course not. My typing is proof
Sure, there are underlying physical and chemical causes as well that serve as means to ends. But that doesn't mean the mental states are not truly just as necessary to the effects as are the blind "means."
Not sure exactly sure about "just", but yes human mental states are a necessary component in human activity.
Take away the mental states, and, per the inference of most people, the effect wouldn't have happened in those cases. ID inferences, like blind, efficient causal inferences, are just inferences, not observations. We can't prove or observe that even one event is caused.
If you are saying that while physics has an explanation why the planets have elliptical orbits we cannot rule out angels pushing the planets then yes, absolute proof is not in the realm of science, only faith can be 100%. And yes any explanation proferred by the ToE can be explained by the Hand of God,if fact everything can be explained that way,from why you are late to work to winning the lottery.
You might ask, "what does teleological inference buy us?" Like QT, it puts BOUNDS on what is possible to believe with warrant and plausibility even when it can't predict with the precision of really good naturalistic theories
Now you lost me, my question is what does a teleological inference cost us? First it requires an agent capable, we have no evidence of such an agent,it can only be assumed such an agent exists.Then it must be assumed what agent goal was/ is, how agent attempted to achieve this goal,whether agent successfully achieved goal,
. Without these bounds supplied by teleological constraints, human and animal behavior would seem completely arbitrary to us.
How is the unknown plan of an unknown agent less arbitrary,at least relying on natural observed forces give man a chance to understand to function of the world.Unless there is an objective way to know this plan.
It's not like we've had, throughout human history, anything LIKE a significantly predictive a-teleological theory that explains specific events of human and animal behavior
Theory of disease , humans illness is caused by natural causes not evil spirits, of course this does not preclude an agent, for a unknown goal, causing childhood leukemia but it does not require it. As for behavior ,brain damage is known to cause change in behavior
But teleology allows us to explain FACETS of that behavior. And that allows us to make actual distinctions between pathological behavior and non-pathological behavior, e.g. Such distinctions would be impossible apart from the inferred causal role of mind and, by implication, pleasure-oriented/pain-averse teleology.
Again,humans can work to goals, my dogs are goal oriented. Please demonstrate those distinctions between pathological and non pathological
Jeff,
DeleteThere is no known LAW of common design. There are known cases of common design. As for change in environment, there can be EITHER designed environmental feed-back mechanisms OR direct teleological tweaking OR a combination of the two that would render the effect teleological.
Really, I thought that there must be,since it is used to explain why an unknown designer choose a particular method to achieve his unknown goal
.I agree that could work if the designer micromanaged the enviroment. At what level does the designer have to be at to design a solar system which an asteroid would hit the planet 65 million years ago,wiping out most of life, or did he just push the rock into earth? What exactly was the goal achieved by the Indonesian tsunami? Why does the designer need to destroy New Jersey, was it a punishment? Isn't it wasteful to cause so much extinction
V, teleologists don't have to explain things specifically if a-teleologists don't. THAT'S THE POINT. All we have to do is demonstrate that current theory doesn't ELIMINATE the possibility that appearance of design INDICATES design. And naturalists have done no such thing yet.
You miss my point,it is impossible to eliminate design by an unknown designer of infinite power and knowledge, second you have explained everything, every natural explanation can be explained by a designer pulling the strings. In a teleological world even the appearance of non design indicates design. A=A ,A= not A.And by the way makes a mockery of so called libertarian free will.If everything is controlled is one actually free to make a choice
You miss my point,it is impossible to eliminate design by an unknown designer of infinite power and knowledge
DeleteNo, it is quite possible to eliminate design just by demonstrating that necessity and chance are all that are required.
That is how it is done in archaeology, forensics and SETI.
V: At what level does the designer have to be at to design a solar system which an asteroid would hit the planet 65 million years ago,wiping out most of life, or did he just push the rock into earth? What exactly was the goal achieved by the Indonesian tsunami? Why does the designer need to destroy New Jersey, was it a punishment? Isn't it wasteful to cause so much extinction
DeleteJ: You're assuming there is only one non-human designer at work in the cosmos. I don't make that assumption for the very reasons you're articulating. But I'm still positing a FINITE number of ad-hoc hypotheses as opposed to the humanly-impossible INFINITE set the a-teleologist must posit to explain anything non-arbitrarily.
And Joe is exactly right as to how to rule out design. But no one is even in the ball park at accomplishing that task.
V: Nope,humans are known to have that ability.
DeleteJ: Well, you would be amazed at how many supposedly intelligent scientists that Moronton thinks I'm supposed to have feidistic faith in disagree with you. They think they teleological relationship is illusory, just like some QT'ists think the causal relation is illusory, just like many physicists think humanly conceivable conceptions of temporal and spatial relationality is illusory.
And you still haven't explained anything a-teleologically in the meanwhile.
V: If he added that he teleported to the store to get milk, then yes it would require more evidence than taking a car.
J: Indeed. But the kind of designer that is inferred to have designed biological functional capacity is not inferred to have been born recently. You see why, right?
V: If you are saying that while physics has an explanation why the planets have elliptical orbits we cannot rule out angels pushing the planets then yes,
J: What physicists have done is corroborated quite will the predicability, and therefore naturality, of the causality involved. That's why virtually no one attempts to explain it non-naturalistically. Again, Joe is right about that.
V: absolute proof is not in the realm of science, only faith can be 100%.
J: Joe is right about how the inference to natural causality works. You're completely over-simplifying it.
V: And yes any explanation proferred by the ToE can be explained by the Hand of God,if fact everything can be explained that way,from why you are late to work to winning the lottery.
J: Again, Joe is right.
J: You might ask, "what does teleological inference buy us?" Like QT, it puts BOUNDS on what is possible to believe with warrant and plausibility even when it can't predict with the precision of really good naturalistic theories
V: Now you lost me,
J: This is where we need to go, then.
V: my question is what does a teleological inference cost us?
J: The way Joe is explaining it, it costs us nothing. It buys us the ability to do induction.
V: First it requires an agent capable, we have no evidence of such an agent,it can only be assumed such an agent exists.
J: There is no such thing as evidence if induction isn't actually correlated to anything outside of our subjective conscious experience. And no one yet has explained, a-teleologically, how to conceive of a non-arbitrary ground for such a correlation. This is why you can't avoid the INFINITE-ad-hoc-hypotheses problem.
V: Then it must be assumed what agent goal was/ is, how agent attempted to achieve this goal,whether agent successfully achieved goal,
J: Ad-hoc hypotheses are required. But only a finite set.
V: How is the unknown plan of an unknown agent less arbitrary,at least relying on natural observed forces give man a chance to understand to function of the world.
J: 1) You can't do natural science without induction. For 2) see my comments about induction above.
V: Theory of disease , humans illness is caused by natural causes not evil spirits, of course this does not preclude an agent, for a unknown goal, causing childhood leukemia but it does not require it. As for behavior ,brain damage is known to cause change in behavior
J: None of that was possible without induction. You need to read that link that BA posted a while back where they admitted that modern science has abandoned the limits of inductive science. This is why it is not demarcatable any more, BTW. Which is why "modern science" is not even definable.
V: Again,humans can work to goals, my dogs are goal oriented. Please demonstrate those distinctions between pathological and non pathological
J: Eliminate sentiently-motivated goals from the conceptions used in scientific explanation, and then define pathology non-arbitrarily such that any other definition would be no less arbitrary. Good luck.
V, if you posit determinism or some combination of determinism and uncaused events as the only kinds of events that preceded teleological humans, you can't explain the origin of a teleological causal relation at all. It's pointless to use the obviously bogus approach Hume used. It can't even explain the appearance of design in biology, for crying out loud, that even many famous atheists admit exists.
DeleteScience either must explain the ORIGIN of the teleological causal mode, or it simply must confess it CAN'T explain everything about BIOLOGICAL ORGANISMS. It certainly can't explain things non-arbitrarily once it denies the teleological synthetic causal relation. And arbitrary belief is WORTHLESS.
If you are sure that ToE is wrong,then what is right?
DeleteThe problem is the ToE isn't even wrong.
Why did the designer violate the law of common design?
What violation?
How did the designer implement the change?
If it wasn't designed that way then by "built-in responses to environmental cues".
When?
Some time in the past.
Why only in Africa if this was common design?
How do you know it's only in Africa?
How does change in enviroment affect common design?
One thing is clear, you don't have any idea what common design means even though it has beed explained and examples given.
And "built-in responses to environmental cues" should answer your question.
Example, V: You say you're dogs are goal-directed. That's precisely what people mean by the APPEARANCE of design. You don't OBSERVE that your dogs are goal-directed. You infer it. Because inferring THAT provides some BOUNDS on inferences that pure naturalism doesn't even buy you yet. Without bona-fide naturalistic explanation of the bodily motion of animals, naturalism merely implies THAT there are event regularities that explain the motion. Naturalists haven't yet explained any of it in terms of any naturalistic theory. In the meanwhile, they're making all kinds of teleological inferences about animals, just like you are.
DeleteJoe,
DeleteNo, it is quite possible to eliminate design just by demonstrating that necessity and chance are all that are required.
Really,two pebbles lay on the ground, design or chance and necessity? A designer tweaks the laws of nature creating a natural occurrence, design or necessity? A designer cleverly designs a system to be undetectable between it and chance and necessity? Every scenario is possible with an unknown designer with unknown goals and unknown capabilities, it is impossible to eliminate design. Luckily you don't have to deal with those problems,only naturalistic theories have to have actual mechanisms and attempt to prove those. Convenient
That is how it is done in archaeology, forensics and SETI.
SETI hasn't detected anything yet, archaeology and forensics have some idea what the agent's capabilities are,none of them allows the agent to breech the laws of nature
Jeff,
DeleteJ: You're assuming there is only one non-human designer at work in the cosmos. I don't make that assumption for the very reasons you're articulating. But I'm still positing a FINITE number of ad-hoc hypotheses as opposed to the humanly-impossible INFINITE set the a-teleologist must posit to explain anything non-arbitrarily
Very wise,so instead of one unknown designer of unknown capabilities, you have a unknown number of unknown designers,instead of one goal you have a unknown number of possible conflicting goals. Perhaps instead of ad hoc assumption you might consider which theory has any known processes. Living organisms have variance,reproduction is non perfect ,and there is a advantage of living animals over dead ones when it comes to reproduction to name a few. What is actually not assumed about the designer?
Really,two pebbles lay on the ground, design or chance and necessity?
DeleteNo one cares. There has to be a REASON to investigate.
A designer tweaks the laws of nature creating a natural occurrence, design or necessity?
Example please.
A designer cleverly designs a system to be undetectable between it and chance and necessity?
Example please.
But again if there isn;t a designer requirement then we don't add one- Newton's Four Rules of Scientific Investigation.
Luckily you don't have to deal with those problems,only naturalistic theories have to have actual mechanisms and attempt to prove those.
LoL! Natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for its origin, which science says it had. You lose.
SETI hasn't detected anything yet,
Yes, they have. And they have determined all those signals are of natural origin- no ET.
archaeology and forensics have some idea what the agent's capabilities are,
LoL! Yeah because they see what the "designers" left behind. How do we know people had the capability to build Stonehenge? Stonehenge.
none of them allows the agent to breech the laws of nature
Who sez that design requires a breech of the laws of nature? And just how does your position explain those laws?
Living organisms have variance,reproduction is non perfect ...
DeleteYeah, by DESIGN
V: Really,two pebbles lay on the ground, design or chance and necessity?
DeleteJ: No motion, no change of state. No change, no effect. No effect, no cause. No cause, no explanation.
V: Very wise,so instead of one unknown designer of unknown capabilities, you have a unknown number of unknown designers,instead of one goal you have a unknown number of possible conflicting goals. Perhaps instead of ad hoc assumption you might consider which theory has any known processes. Living organisms have variance,reproduction is non perfect ,and there is a advantage of living animals over dead ones when it comes to reproduction to name a few.
J: You've bought yourself nothing of relevance. We can't predict phenotypes beyond that which is consistent with SA. And merely positing variation and diversely advantageous variation, at that, is not demonstrably contradictory to a astronomically huge set of evolutionary trees (and these don't even include speculative ones that posit tons of hypothetical transitionals). And yet none of these are known to be logically possible if they are to be consistent with the currently-inferred event regularities of physics and chemistry.
If naturalistic UCA is true, there was exactly one tree. How do you get the astronomical set of trees that could be posited down to one tree by actually PREDICTING the relevant phenotypes at the relevant times in terms of the event regularities you insist were in operation at the time? We're not even in the ballpark of explaining that. But if we ever do so in a naturalistic way with plausible event regularities, THEN naturalistic UCA will seem to involve way less ad-hoc hypotheses.
V: What is actually not assumed about the designer?
J: A non-arbitrary epistemology requires that ...
1) our inductive nature
and
2) it's correspondence to how an external world works
... be explained by a benevolent, competent (and, hence, the most powerful) designer. But there are plenty of human designers that are not particularly benevolent. Thus, there is no a priori reason to assume all non-human designers are benevolent.
But your approach is epistemologically arbitrary. That's why it involves the impossible positing of an infinite set of ad-hoc hypotheses. Sir Martin Rees said it this way:
"All the multiverse ideas lead to a remarkable synthesis between cosmology and physics.... But they also lead to the extraordinary consequence that we may not be the deepest reality, we may be a simulation. The possibility that we are creations of some supreme or super-being, blurs the boundary physics and idealist philosophy, between the natural and the supernatural, and between the relation of mind and multiverse and the possibility that we're in the matrix rather than the physics itself."
In short, regardless of one's acceptance of the multiverse approach, when the VALIDITY (as per the correspondence of 1 & 2 above) of conscious, inductive thought does not follow as an implied effect from any conceivable causal theory applied to any conceivable initial conditions, your whole epistemology is a blind-faith system. Because it can't be corroborated.
The epistemological approach I'm using (and explained earlier to you) is corroborated over and over every time my inductive inferences are conducive to my greater long-term satisfaction. That inductive approach requires that I can explain things with only a finite number of ad-hoc hypotheses. And it requires that I minimize this finite set as much as possible.
Moreover, it's an approach that seems to be virtually irresistable by most people. Indeed, even most of those who claim to reject it only do so because they think their inductive reasoning can be done non-arbitrarily apart from it. But Rees is right, and they are wrong.
LOL! Poor Liar for Jesus Jeff still producing piles of meaningless jibberish trying to philosophize away 150+ years of scientific positive evidence for ToE.
DeleteKeep trying LFJJ. I'm sure Fatboy Joke G is on your side.
What is this alleged positive evidence for evolutionism?
Deletethorton is the premier spokesthing for the society of of cowardly and ignorant pathological liars.
Thorton is our hyper-enthusiastic, one-man fan club. Only slightly less enthusiastic as he is fideistic and moronic.
DeleteTold you Fatboy Joke Gallien is on your side. He's dumb enough to swallow any and all pro-Creations nonsense.
DeleteJeff and v
DeleteV: What is actually not assumed about the designer?
J: A non-arbitrary epistemology requires that ...
1) our inductive nature
and
2) it's correspondence to how an external world works
... be explained by a benevolent, competent (and, hence, the most powerful) designer. But there are plenty of human designers that are not particularly benevolent. Thus, there is no a priori reason to assume all non-human designers are benevolent
You might need to elaborate of this a bit
V, you've condeded that a designer with sufficient capacities can explain anything. That's the point. Such a requisitely-propertied designer EXPLAINS how our satisfaction is tied to our inductive inferential nature, which in turn explains how (and why--i.e., satisfaction--it is literally less satisfying to be a radical skeptic) we distinguish between warranted and unwarranted belief and between more- and less-plausible belief.
DeleteThere is no extant naturalistic theory that explains any of that. Thus, naturalistic epistemologies provide no non-arbitrary criteria by which to make those kinds of distinctions.
If you think otherwise, explain how an atheist or a radical deist could prevent the radical skepticism that follows from Sir Martin Rees' observation. Of course, Rees is saying nothing that others haven't already said long before.
So what's your theory?
ReplyDeleteLemme guess:
Jesus noticed a cockroach species with poor jumping ability having a hard time in the tall grass. The original 'kind' of roach on the Ark obviously wasn't properly equipped for these conditions, so Jesus remembered how he gave grasshoppers their jumping ability and decided to equip the roaches with a similar design.
How am I doing as a design theorist?
How am I doing as a design theorist?
DeleteStill as ignorant as any blind watchmaker theorist.
Has any one ever bothered to ask why a cockroach would bother to stay in the tall grass long enough to evolve a leaping ability?
DeleteAfter all, Africa is not and probably never was, completely covered in tall grass. There would be no environmental pressure to evolve leaping abilities when he could just move down the block.
that's why CH was saying, "evolution is at all times evolving most all designs in most all species in most all environments".
Deletethe idea is that it evolved at least just before it was needed, and was then selected.
also @Jeff - I seriously doubt the similarities have to do with HGT. It's just a statement about phenotype. But yes, jumping seems to be a very precise thing that many organisms seem to be able to do. An evolutionist would say that not only must it be a very successful strategy, but that apparently, it must also be a rather easy to evolve strategy since it seems to be hit on quite a bit by chance.
How many mutations does it take to get that ability to jump?
DeleteEvolutionists say quite a bit but they can never quantify what they spew.
John, I certainly wasn't suggesting that all similarities are due to HGT. I was only speculating the possibility of HGT in this one case since CH said this was the ONLY jumping roach.
DeleteBut positing HGT is not demonstrating HGT or explaining something by HGT. And that's something that UCA'ists can't understand, amazingly enough.
To explain something is to show that the cause IMPLIES the effect. Thus, the mere occurrence of HGT doesn't explain ANY specific effect. Because a high-level, generic claim, like "HGT has occurred," doesn't imply any specific instance of HGT has occurred. It just means, if true, that it has occurred in SOME inferred instance.
Phillip Johnson hit the nail on the head years ago when he said UCA'ists don't even understand what it is they have to show. They're actually more like Platonists than naturalists in the classical sense. Good luck with getting inductive-thinking folk, who value parsimony, to choose Platonic thought over teleological thought. Platonic thought doesn't rule out teleology, it just adds a new class of seeming teleological thought to bona-fide, straight-forward teleological thought. And it does so without explaining any more than does straight-forward teleological thought.
DeleteLiar for Jesus Jeff
DeletePhillip Johnson hit the nail on the head years ago
Go over Phillip Johnson's scientific training and experience in the field of biological evolution once more for us, will you LFJJ? Thanks!
Johnson knows more than thorton- at least he understands evidence...
DeleteAnd Johnson can give an example of evidence to demonstrate HOW data INDICATES an inference is more or less plausible than contrary ones.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRemarkable convergence is the soft underbelly of the error of evolution I think.
ReplyDeleteIts only remarkable because its so unlikely.
There is nothing remarkable if the model is that evolution did not to the creating here but something else.
A common blueprint is what was invoked to bring results.
As always the great clue is the "remarkable convergence" of marsupials with placentals.
Its just plain wrong to have said a marsupial wolf is a maladjusted Kangaroo when itr is just plainly another wolf type on the planet. Pouch or no pouch.