tsig
Posts: 339
Joined: Aug. 2006
|
| Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 09 2010,18:52) | | Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 05 2010,20:08) | | Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 05 2010,02:56) | | Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 03 2010,19:21) | | Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 03 2010,03:50) | | Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 01 2010,07:17) | | H'mm a land mammal (dolphin) converges on a fish shape and that is okay with you, but two land mammals converge on a similar shape - something that requires fewer changes than going from land to sea - and that is out of the question. Consistency is not your thing is it Robert. |
It makes my case.
The marsupial wolf is not just got a like shape as a regular wolf. Everything is the same from bone to flesh. Save a few differences.
Yet the sameness is the same.
The dolphin is not the same as a fish and only has a shape like a fish for a special general niche need.
I would say the mar/wolf is 90-95 % like a regular wolf and a dolphin about 5% like a fish at best.
In fact a dolphin is only convergent on a shape for motion and not convergent inside or out because of specific niche needs for hunting or hiding.
A video of a dolphin shows a very different creature in looks and motion from a fish.
A video of a mar/wolf shows a wolf in almost every detail of looks and motion. |
Hard to say given that wolves are pack animals and thylacines were as well. We do not really see a good range of thylacine behavior, rather we see the same pacing behavior displayed by a lot of animals kept in captivity without the benefit of enrichment. In the video we only see one thylacine so we can't tell whether it related to its fellow thylacines in the same way wolves related to each other. Interesting that in the close up of the face the thylacine it looks more like a kangaroo face than a wolf face. Also interesting is the way the tail was held mostly horizontal and only occasionally bent down and never curled over the back. Not a very wolf-like way to carry a tail. One suspects that there might almost be structural reasons for it. At any rate, it didn't look terribly wolf-like to me and the more I watched it the less wolf-like it became. |
Well I leave it to the public to vote on whether this cute marsupial wolf looks like a wolf or a kangaroo (face).
In fact its head is so dog like it alone makes my case.
Its tail is different and it could use it for better unright action. So could a marsupial cat. Yet its either a adaptation from some original type of tail upon immigration or a general need to have this.
Its not the pacing but its sitting, scratching, chewing and general doggy actions that should say to the observation that this is very likely another dog. Its a prompt to the conscience.
Then ones thinking can deal with the differences.
Remember convergent evolution demands great mutation/selection on these creatures in order to make it look like a dog.
So you must accept evolution itself is saying its not a superficial result.
Its a resulf from profound influences.
I say the minor differences are just from influence.
The same with the rest. |
Yes, lets vote. Here is a picture of a thylacine - it's actually a still from the movie:
and here are two wolves in a similar view:
Other than some basic, primitive ancestral traits I'm not seeing much in the way of similarity here.
Apparently, thylacines also hopped on two legs occasionally - I don't think wolves do that, but I coulded be wrong. |
AMEN. Let the world vote.
My vote is that these are pictures of the same dog type. The marsupial one looks like any number of breeds of present domestic dogs.
Not kangaroos. They didn't hop but do have a greater ability to use their tail to be upright. Actually so did the marsupial cat.
This is a minor useful point.
There is a cat called the fishing cat (indonesia I think) that otherwise looks like a cat but has a tail with a more solid structure in orde to aid in snatching fish ut of the water. Tails are very adaptable and not reflective of heritage.
A bigger picture. Imagine being in a area where you have these marsupial wolves, lions, tapirs, bears, moles, mice and so on.
Would one not simply say these are the same creatures as everywhere else on earth with a few details of common in difference?
Would one otherwise suspect they are from a common non descript marsupial rodent-ish creature and by the wonder of convergent evolution just came to look like other creatures elsewhere on earth?
I insist that these old classification systems were just plain wrong and unnessessary and even counter intutive.
I say this can be brought to bear on all kinds of ideas in classification.
I don't think dinosaurs exist as different orders of creatures but are simply creatures with like details for like needs. perhaps , not sure, a rhino and a triceratops are of the same kind. A triceratops is not more related to a t-rex.
ILikewise birds are not dinos but simply have like structures for like needs.
How one groups creatures is just in need of serious revision. so a biblical creationist must be the first to do it. |
Robert I just looked at my arm and saw I have hair on it then I realized i have two lungs, two eyes, a central brain and a mouth and anus.
OMG I"m a wolf!!!
Here's the silver bullet shoot me before sundown
|
