Robert Byers
Posts: 160
Joined: Nov. 2009
|
| Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 11 2009,19:00) | | Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 10 2009,00:15) | | Quote (Quack @ Dec. 09 2009,03:01) | | Quote | | I would insist that the differences are few and the sameness of marsupial wolves etc are fantastic. In fact so much that they have to invoke a concept of special convergent evolution. |
You are making a colossal error by just looking at overall external appearance. Those animals are so very different in lots of details internally and genetically that nobody in his right mind consider them the same animal. They are absolutely incapable of interbreeding.
Is it enough for you if two cars to have similar exterior, then they are the same model? They have for wheels and you have to look closely to see that one is a Chevrolet the other is a Ford, doesn't matter to you?
Doesn't matter if one have a small four cylinder diesel engine, manual gearing et cetera, and the other a six-cylinder gasoline engine, automatic gearing and all sorts of bells and whistles?
ETA typo fix. |
You make my case.
The sameness is so important that even evolution must come up with a explanation. They call it convergent evolution. it means unrelated creatures came to look the same because they lived in the same kind of niches.
The external is what it is because of thousands of points of twists and turns of the anatomy. To have such sameness to the eye requires fantastic biological realities of physical attributes.
Evolution itself must insist selection was very important on bodies from point a to point b to bring such convergence.
The marsupial body is only different in reproductive details and a few things in the skull.
Otherwise marsupial cats, dogs, bears, mice, tapirs etc are so close to their placental namesakes that it stretches credibility to not see they are the same kinds. |
This is so, well, drug-trippy, that I had to go back to it (while skimming to find the newest responses).
"The external is what it is because of thousands of points of twists and turns of the anatomy. To have such sameness to the eye requires fantastic biological realities of physical attributes.
Evolution itself must insist selection was very important on bodies from point a to point b to bring such convergence."
The external is the way it is because of genes and the effects of the environment (including other creatures) on said genes. Anatomy is the end result (more or less). To have such sameness (which really isn't there in marsupial wof/wolf comparisons) merely indicates that selective pressures were similar. And why not? A forest is a forest, just the finer details are different - and while they make all the difference for the final product, the large details can play a major role for the gross characteristics.
Eyes, however, come in many different forms, but follow basic the same basic principles due to physics and the limits of what our biology is capable of. In energy-limited environments (that means our bodies too) there is a limit on what can develop and what can survive. Mutations too severe probably account for some fraction of the millions (or billions, rather) or spontaneous abortions that happen every year.
Do a little research on the variety of eyes - it's fascinating. |
Well I'm saying selection did not act upon unrelated 'rodent like creatures" and in bring forth same looking but unrelated creatures.
I'm saying same is same and other explanations for the minor differences should of been invoked first.
I was not talking about the eye but only meant that to ones view a marsupial wolf looking like our wolves requires thousands of twists and turns of the physical makeup and is not superficial. its profound. Even evolution would have to say this as they have selection over time bringing forth such convergent bodies.
I welcome research into different kinds of eyes as I historically had eye crises issues.
|
