Elder,
So you are saying that WRT evolution that convergent evolution can be a product of genetics which where activated because of the enviorment?
I'd quibble with the word "activated", but basically yes. However, that does not mean that there are genes with a similar sequence for "wolf like skull", for example. Similar phenotypes don't
have to have similar genotypes. Direct Mendelian inheritance is pretty rare, & most phenotypes are affected by large numbers of genes & non-synonymous changes to any of them will produce changes. It stands to reason that changes to one gene will produce similar effects to another. In other words, the genome has more than one way to skin a cat. Wolves & thylacines don't have the same morphology because they have the same nucleotide sequences. They share a similar morphology because the genes they were lumbered with had mutations retained that favoured similar morphologies (although most likely at different loci).
I am saying that the FETUS of a Thylacine does not look any different then the full grown Thylacine (except the stripes),SO, what exactly developed because of adaptation or convergent evolution?
All of the wolf like features, obviously. Why is is such a problem for you that the foetus possess' wolf like features when the adult does? Doesn't a dog foetus look like an adult dog in much the same way? Doesn't a human foetus have a relatively large brain just like the adult, do you think the child is doing sums in its head pre-birth? Doesn't a fish foetus have fins? (Pls note the thylacine "foetus" is about to be born looking at its stage of development,
if it hadn't already been).
Of course that does not mean that the Thylacine is a product of convergent evolution or evolution at all but just another species. But of course, I assume that there is fossil record, and dna, too support the development of a Thylacine according to evolution?
I thank Loudmouth for
this comparison. Note how the two placentals group more closely than the marsupial?
Let's look at the facts again. Carnivora are not native to Tasmania, & they are placental. Thylacine is a marsupial carnivore that is found nowhere else. What is the
likeliest scenario, that Thylacine evolved similar adaptations to wolves based upon a similar lifestyle despite them not sharing a carnivora common ancestor, or that the ancestor thylacine was a marsupial, evolved into a placental mammal & back again, despite no canidae existing in Tasmania for the thylacine to share the placental ancestry with?
It's pretty obvious, Elder.
Mark
------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall
[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-27-2003]
™ Version 4.2