EvC Forum: Is convergent evolution evidence against common descent?

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: Is convergent evolution evidence against common descent?

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 70 of 311 (214445)
06-05-2005 7:08 AM

Reply to: Message 56 by randman
06-05-2005 5:00 AM

Re: Look at wings...

randman writes:

Could you explain to me how marsupials and placental mammals only share a small number of traits with their seeming counterparts? YOur comments are total BS, and hopefully by now, you know it. There is a reason, btw, that both marsupials are considered mammals, and guess what? It's not because they only share a few traits as you ignorantly claim.

Please elucidate the shared characteristics. This should be informative! You do realise that marsupials and placentals are the two very distinct subgroups of mammal, don't you? (Of course I'm not discounting the monotremes, just nto specifically addressing them because it would make your position even more ridiculous.)

Are we going to go through a comparison of the thylacine (marsupial tiger or is it wolf?) with its supposed placental counterpart? Please provide your assessment of the importance of considering similarities of reproductive mechanisms in the taxonomy of organisms.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 56 by randman, posted 06-05-2005 5:00 AM		randman has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 76 by randman, posted 06-05-2005 4:08 PM		wj has not replied

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 136 of 311 (214924)
06-07-2005 6:19 AM

Reply to: Message 131 by randman
06-07-2005 3:17 AM

Re: Inconsistent?

Speaking of inconsistent,

randman writes:

Ned, I am not sure what data you are referring to. If you mean the link you provided, I think we can dismiss it as inaccurate, but it actually refuted your prediction. Let's look at it.
Here is what I posted from your link. Maybe you did not read it?

But there are some anomalies. It indicates, for example, that the primates (humans and monkeys) split off before the split separating the kangaroo, a marsupial, from the other placental mammals.

http://users.rcn.com/...ges/T/Taxonomy.html#ProteinSequences

If rand wants to make an appeal to the authority of the above site then perhaps, in the cause of thoroughness, s/he should have included a later sentence from the quotation:

quote:
But sequence analysis of other proteins can resolve such discrepancies.

Are we seeing a case of intellectual dishonesty?

This message is a reply to:
	Message 131 by randman, posted 06-07-2005 3:17 AM		randman has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 142 by randman, posted 06-07-2005 1:30 PM		wj has not replied

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 230 of 311 (215585)
06-09-2005 9:23 AM

Reply to: Message 221 by randman
06-09-2005 12:11 AM

Re: Fun with phylogenies

Randman, do you understand the implications of Wounded King's analysis in message #216?

Sequence type explicitly set to Protein
Sequence format is Pearson
Sequence 1: Wombat 381 aa
Sequence 2: Dunnart 381 aa
Sequence 3: Mouse 381 aa
Sequence 4: Woodchuck 379 aa
Sequence 5: Thylacine 381 aa
Sequence 6: Wolf 379 aa
Start of Pairwise alignments
Aligning...
Sequences (5:6) Aligned. Score: 80
Sequences (1:2) Aligned. Score: 87
Sequences (3:4) Aligned. Score: 84
Sequences (2:3) Aligned. Score: 80
Sequences (4:5) Aligned. Score: 80
Sequences (1:3) Aligned. Score: 80
Sequences (3:5) Aligned. Score: 79
Sequences (2:4) Aligned. Score: 81
Sequences (4:6) Aligned. Score: 87
Sequences (1:4) Aligned. Score: 79
Sequences (3:6) Aligned. Score: 86
Sequences (2:5) Aligned. Score: 92
Sequences (1:5) Aligned. Score: 87
Sequences (2:6) Aligned. Score: 81
Sequences (1:6) Aligned. Score: 80

I can't copy the tree so go back and look at it again.

The marsupials cluster together; the placentals cluster together. The placental wolf and marsupial thylacine show less genetic similarities to eachother than to the other members of their own suborder. The marsupial durrant and placental mouse are as genetically far apart as any pair in that sample despite some external similarities.

Your musing " It will be interesting to see, eventually, if similar physical appearance does related to similar genetic sequences or not" has already been done before your very eyes and demonstrated that there is not necessarily a relation between physical appearances and genetic sequences. Did you completly miss the point of the exercise?

This message is a reply to:
	Message 221 by randman, posted 06-09-2005 12:11 AM		randman has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 232 by randman, posted 06-09-2005 9:38 AM	wj has not replied
	Message 233 by Wounded King, posted 06-09-2005 9:44 AM	wj has not replied
	Message 237 by MangyTiger, posted 06-09-2005 3:35 PM	wj has not replied