|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
|
| |
| ChatGPT | |
| Total: 916,471 Year: 3,728/9,624 Month: 599/974 Week: 212/276 Day: 52/34 Hour: 0/2 |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Marsupial evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
It is often said, it support of evolution, that the marsupials are "more similar" to each other then to their similar looking placental counterpart. Kangaroo
Platypus
Koala
Hmmmmm, yes, I see what you mean.
When scientists say they are more similar, to they refer to bone structure or genetic similarities? Both, usually.
Indeed, these must both be true if in reality they evolved from a more recent common ancestor then they share with the placentals A degree of morphological similarity does not necessarily indicate an analogous DNA sequence. Or I should say, its not that impressive. What is impressive in the defense of classic Darwinian evolution is shared errors in coding. That lends far more credence than anything else, IMO. And as you can see, a Tasmanian Wolf has more morphological similarities with its placental counterpart, the Dingo Dingo
And yet, there is no relation. Likewise, a Kangaroo Rat, which is a marsupial
looks more like a typical rat or mouse.
And yet, there is no relation. Looks can be deceiving. "God is like the sun. You can't look at it. But without it you can't look at anything else." -G.K. Chesterton
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
FYI NJ, a platypus is a monotreme, not a marsupial. I stand corrected. 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
