Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
359 online now:
DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), ramoss, Theodoric (4 members, 355 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,804 Year: 21,840/19,786 Month: 403/1,834 Week: 403/315 Day: 81/78 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Wombat Pouch
InGodITrust
Member (Idle past 5 days)
Posts: 53
From: Reno, Nevada, USA
Joined: 05-02-2009


(1)
Message 1 of 85 (615538)
05-13-2011 3:25 PM


One of the best creationist arguments I have heard concerns the "backward" pouch of the wombat. Opposite to most marsupial pouches, the wombat's opens to the rear, which is valuable to it, as a burrowing animal, for keeping dirt out of the pouch. But how could the pouch turn around by natural selction?

When I first heard about this problem, I thought that the answer that would satisfy natural selection would be that the wobat evolved its pouch seperatly from marsupials that evolved front-opening pouches. But I just saw a TV show that said all of the world's marsupials have a common ancestor: a rat-like animal that lived in China.

So is there a well known solution to this probalem that I have missed? I searched the web and the EVC forums for discussion on it, but found none. Could the pouch have flipped around in one fell swoop, with a single genetic mutation? If so, wouldn't other simultateous mutations have had to occur to make the new pouch work? And if the pouch transitioned in a series of small steps, what would that have looked like?

IGIT


Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by frako, posted 05-14-2011 10:34 AM InGodITrust has not yet responded
 Message 22 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-14-2011 1:52 PM InGodITrust has not yet responded
 Message 29 by Meddle, posted 05-15-2011 8:36 PM InGodITrust has not yet responded
 Message 30 by Robert Byers, posted 05-18-2011 3:47 AM InGodITrust has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12653
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 2 of 85 (615540)
05-14-2011 6:26 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Wombat Pouch thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 441 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 3 of 85 (615541)
05-14-2011 6:53 AM


The difference between the two pouches is not rotation, it's the position of the opening relative to the front and rear of the pouch. The common ancestor likely had a small pouch with a rearward opening, in Kangaroos the pouch lengthened with the opening sitting to the front, in wombats it lengthened with opening remaining rearward.

Probably.


Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 05-14-2011 7:29 AM Dr Jack has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19062
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 4 of 85 (615542)
05-14-2011 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Dr Jack
05-14-2011 6:53 AM


The opening post assume that the pouch rotated and asked how that could happen with gradual stepwise evolution.

You answer that it wasn't the pouch that rotated but the opening that moved from rear to front. How does that happen with gradual stepwise evolution?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Dr Jack, posted 05-14-2011 6:53 AM Dr Jack has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Dr Jack, posted 05-14-2011 7:54 AM Percy has responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 441 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 5 of 85 (615543)
05-14-2011 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Percy
05-14-2011 7:29 AM


Percy writes:

You answer that it wasn't the pouch that rotated but the opening that moved from rear to front. How does that happen with gradual stepwise evolution?

By stepwise changes in the growth rate/time of the sections that form the front and rear flaps of the pouch, of course.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 05-14-2011 7:29 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 05-14-2011 8:47 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19062
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 6 of 85 (615549)
05-14-2011 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Dr Jack
05-14-2011 7:54 AM


One of us is missing the obvious.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Dr Jack, posted 05-14-2011 7:54 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Modulous, posted 05-14-2011 9:27 AM Percy has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 440 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 7 of 85 (615553)
05-14-2011 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Percy
05-14-2011 8:47 AM


One of those key cognitive difficulties with evolution is our tendency to view animals as final products, as opposed to things which were developed. I assume Mr Jack is suggesting that minor changes in early development can potentially have much larger ramifications later on in the wombat's development. Rather than developing a pouch and then having to invert it, a minor alteration in the timings of growth surrounding the rear and front flaps is potentially all that is needed.

Ive never really looked into wombat pouches a great deal before. I would hesitate to call it an argument for creation, its more of an interesting question for developmental biologists. But I guess creationists have difficulty discriminating between the two.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 05-14-2011 8:47 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Percy, posted 05-14-2011 9:48 AM Modulous has acknowledged this reply
 Message 9 by Percy, posted 05-14-2011 9:55 AM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19062
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 8 of 85 (615557)
05-14-2011 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Modulous
05-14-2011 9:27 AM


I see unexplained conundrums no matter which way you turn.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Modulous, posted 05-14-2011 9:27 AM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19062
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 9 of 85 (615558)
05-14-2011 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Modulous
05-14-2011 9:27 AM


Here's an interesting fact - the koala bear's pouch is also inverted. So much for the connection
with burrowing.

AbE: Tasmanian devil, inverted pouch, burrowing animal.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Add another detail.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Modulous, posted 05-14-2011 9:27 AM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Straggler, posted 05-14-2011 11:03 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2822
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 10 of 85 (615562)
05-14-2011 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by InGodITrust
05-13-2011 3:25 PM


i dont think the "rotation" of the pouch had to be gradual, it could have been a single mutation like when people get a mutation that makes their legs face backwards.

The question is advantage of a backward facing pouch or disadvantage of a forward facing pouch. And what came first? And from what it evolved?

My guess and its a guess i dint read up on it is that the pouch was originally backwards orientated evolving from sexual organs or something similar in the back part of the body.

A ken-guru with a pouch facing backwards would probably have a big problem holding on to his young while jumping around. So my guess is the freedom of jumping around was first enabled by the rotation of the pouch giving the animal more speed while carrying their young giving it a better chance for survival.

All the back pouch facing marsupials never had any selective pressure to turn their pouch around so their pouches stayed facing backwards or at some point even had selective pressures to keep their pouch facing backwards like digging and getting their pouch messy in the process.

This argument is pulled out of my arse so it might be wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by InGodITrust, posted 05-13-2011 3:25 PM InGodITrust has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-14-2011 1:53 PM frako has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 11 of 85 (615563)
05-14-2011 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Percy
05-14-2011 9:55 AM


Percy writes:

Here's an interesting fact - the koala bear's pouch is also inverted. So much for the connection
with burrowing.

An animal that climbs trees with it's belly dragging across the surface of the tree arguably has much the same reasons for an inverted pouch as a burrowing animal.

Or koalas are descended from burrowing animals and evolution was incapable of inverting a fully formed pouch?

The inverted pouch question is more interesting than it first appears.........


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Percy, posted 05-14-2011 9:55 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Big_Al35, posted 08-23-2013 6:39 AM Straggler has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 12 of 85 (615566)
05-14-2011 11:24 AM


Koala Pouches
Apparently koala pouches are not upside down as such:

Link writes:

"Female koalas have been described as having a ‘backward-opening’ pouch, in common with wombats and in contrast to an upward-opening pouch like kangaroos. However, that's not strictly true. When a female koala first gives birth to young her pouch opening faces neither up nor down, although it is located towards the bottom of the pouch rather than at the top. It faces straight outwards rather than 'backwards'. It sometimes appears to be ‘backward-facing’ because when the joey is older and leans out of the pouch, this pulls the pouch downwards or 'backwards'."

Koalas


  
jar
Member
Posts: 31753
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 13 of 85 (615567)
05-14-2011 11:44 AM


passing the plate
Would infants killed because they were smothered in dirt while in their mothers pouch pass on their genes?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Straggler, posted 05-14-2011 11:53 AM jar has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 14 of 85 (615570)
05-14-2011 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by jar
05-14-2011 11:44 AM


Re: passing the plate
jar writes:

Would infants killed because they were smothered in dirt while in their mothers pouch pass on their genes?

Obviously not. Which explains why the wombat pouch isn't the same as that of a kangaroo. But how this difference in pouch orientation occurred remains a valid question.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 05-14-2011 11:44 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 05-14-2011 11:59 AM Straggler has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31753
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 15 of 85 (615572)
05-14-2011 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Straggler
05-14-2011 11:53 AM


Re: passing the plate
So would the genes from the mothers who just happened to have a pouch opening that protected the infant more get passed on?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Straggler, posted 05-14-2011 11:53 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Straggler, posted 05-14-2011 12:07 PM jar has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019