Marsupial evolution

And yet you were the one claiming that the thylacine skull was virtually indistinguishable from the wolf skull.Do you ever (a) stick to a point or (b) admit when you are wrong? This constant changing of the argument that you continually engage in is just another case of moving goalposts.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : .

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Okay, then let's say that wolves and bears are more similar than wolves and the thylacine ...Bear:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Ursidae
Genus: Ursus
Species: U. arctosWolf:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Canidae
Genus: Canis
Species: C. lupusthylacine
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Infraclass: Marsupialia
Order: Dasyuromorphia
Family: Thylacinidae
Genus: Thylacinus
Species: T. cynocephalusThe thylacine is also called either the Tasmanian Tiger or the Tasmanian Wolf, so does that mean it is related to both tigers and wolves? Or is the similarity of thylacine to tigers just superficial while the similarity of thylacine to wolves isn't?The skull is different, the teeth are different, the reproductive system is different, and in each case MORE different from the wolf than the wolf is from the bear.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : .

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Except that this too is false.As noted the skulls and teeth are different, they are more different between thylacine and wolf than between wolf and bear. There are others that are less visible to the layman, but which are significant to the taxonomist.In the Dogs will be Dogs thread (correct me if I am wrong) you welcomed my use of variation within the dog species as a metric to measure evolution, and thought it was about time somebody came up with something like that. What you don't know is the depth of measurements that taxonomists make of every fossil to quantify the similarities and differences.http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/er1813.htm

quote:

---

KNM-ER 1813

​

A relatively complete cranium of an early Homo lacking part of the left side of the face. It has been designated a Homo Habilis with a smallish cranial volume of 505 to 510 ml. The postorbital constriction is moderate. The nuchal crests are weak and the mastoid process is small. This early Homo specimen was found below the KBS tuff. It was within a deposit that reflects either a delta plain or shallow, offshore lake environment.

---

Bold for emphasis on the comparison terminology, and note that these are not things subject to change during development of an individual, but critical small differences in one group of fossil from another -- differences much smaller, btw, than those known to exist in dogs. I am pointing out things that are readily visible as different to those who are interested in seeing the differences rather than gloss over them.Of course there are things that are similar between thylacine and wolf and bear, but there are also many things that are similar to reptiles. And the degrees of similarity correspond to the dates for last common ancestorsEnjoy.Edited by RAZD, : addedEdited by RAZD, : .

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

SKreeccchhhh. Damn those moving goal-posts are noisy! Let's see, wolves have grey fur while thylacines have brown with black stripe fur ... ... or do we need to compare them to whales The items picked are specifically picked to show that there is different lineages, ancestors of each that are more different than the modern species. But the similarities also show lineage between the two, just much more ancient than either wolf or thylacine appearance. We can compare both to synapsids, some of the earliest mammals known, and see that features that wolves and thylacines share are mostly shared by synapsids, so these similarities help define both as in the mammal branch but not much more than that. What more do you need, once you have demonstrated the differences between the two means the relationship between them is nothing more than convergent evolution between two distantly related mammalia branches, older than the classification of carnivoria?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : .

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Ah yes, those silly taxonomists just make stuff up, eh? Do you really have no idea of how massive is the amount of information available, how long it has been assembled and reviewed and added to?Here's a thought: take you question to the nearest natural history museum and ask to see the director, who is of course twiddling his thumbs, because evos don't really do anything but imagine stuff. Tell him you think there's been a big mistake, and wolves and thylacines are really closely related. You could try the Field Museum in Chicago, and ask said director if you can go through the drawers and drawers of fossils and skeletons, the way scientists do. Then travel to the other museums and do the same. London is supposed to be pretty good.Btw, it might be useful (in getting permission) to be at least a graduate student in biology ... Like arachnophilia did on just this topic?And you can look up bears yourself: google bear skull skulls unlimited has a bunch you can look at. First we'll list what they have for the gray wolf:Access denied

quote:

---

Gray Wolf
Order: Carnivora
Family: Canidae
Canis lupus
Average Skull Length: 29cm / 11.4
Origin: North America
Carnivore
Incisor 3 top / 3 bottom
Canine 1 top /1 bottom
Premolar 4 top /4 bottom
Molar 2 top / 3 bottom
x 2 sides = 42

---

Then what they say for thylacine:
Access denied

quote:

---

Tasmanian Wolf
Order: Dasyuromorphia
Family: Thylacinidae
Thylacinus cynocephalus
Skull Length: 22cm / 8.7"
Origin: Tasmania
Carnivore
Incisor 4 top / 3 bottom
Canine 1 top /1 bottom
Premolar 3 top /3 bottom
Molar 4 top / 4 bottom
x 2 sides = 46

---

Now on to the bears:Access denied

quote:

---

Polar Bear
Order: Carnivora
Family: Ursidae
Ursus maritimus
Skull Length: 46cm / 18.11"
Origin: North America
Carnivore
Incisor 3 top / 3 bottom
Canine 1 top /1 bottom
Premolar 4 top /4 bottom
Molar 2 top / 3 bottom
x 2 sides = 42

---

Look at that! exactly the same pattern as the wolves!!!!Access denied

quote:

---

Grizzly Bear
Order: Carnivora
Family: Ursidae
Ursus arctos
Average Skull Length: 49.5cm
Origin: North America
Omnivore
Incisor 3 top / 3 bottom
Canine 1 top /1 bottom
Premolar 4 top /4 bottom
Molar 2 top / 3 bottom
x 2 sides = 42

---

Not surprising both N.American bears are similar, even though different species, and one is an omnivore while the other is a carnivore.Not surprising that they are similar to other carnivora - wolves - in the number and placement of teeth.Not surprising (to me anyway) they are different from thylacine in number and placement of teeth.But that's not all ...Sun bears are found in south asia:
Access denied

quote:

---

Sun Bear Order: Carnivora
Family: Ursidae
Ursus malayanus
Average Skull Length: 22cm
Origin: Asia
Omnivore
Incisor 3 top / 3 bottom
Canine 1 top /1 bottom
Premolar 4 top /4 bottom
Molar 2 top / 3 bottom
x 2 sides = 42

---

Oops same teeth again!Access denied

quote:

---

Giant Panda
Order: Carnivora
Family: Ursidae
Ailuropoda melanoleuca
Skull Length: 26.5cm / 10.43"
Origin: China
Omnivore
Incisor 3 top / 3 bottom
Canine 1 top /1 bottom
Premolar 4 top /4 bottom
Molar 2 top / 3 bottom
x 2 sides = 42

---

Even the Panda has the same teeth pattern!Access denied

quote:

---

Raccoon
Order: Carnivora
Family: Procyonidae
Procyon lotor
Average Skull Length: 12cm
Origin: North America
Omnivore
Incisor 3 top / 3 bottom
Canine 1 top /1 bottom
Premolar 4 top /4 bottom
Molar 2 top / 2 bottom
x 2 sides = 40

---

Slight difference, but still more similar to wolf than to thylacine.We can also look at felinesAccess denied

quote:

---

African Lion
Order: Carnivora
Family: Felidae
Panthera leo
Skull Length: 36cm / 14.17"
Origin: Africa
Carnivore
Incisor 3 top / 3 bottom
Canine 1 top /1 bottom
Premolar 3 top /2 bottom
Molar 1 top / 1 bottom
x 2 sides = 30

---

Domestic cat and other felines similar (30 teeth). Still more similar to wolf than to thylacine.In fact you can read down this list and see the teeth listed:
Access deniedWeasels, badgers, skunks, otters, mongoose, etc etc etc ... none with 3 premolars and 4 molars like the thylacine.And that's just the teeth. The information is out there Randman, piles of it, and all you need to do is search for it ... if you really want to know.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : !Edited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : .

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

No I am recommending that you go and talk to the director, see if youi can get behind the scenes to see actual skeletons and fossils -- this is where they are kept, if you don't know. The Smithsonian and the ROM in Toronto are other museums that have evidence in storage. Similar but different: no placental animal has a pouch, thylacines have a pouch. This is a substantial difference from the wolf.The similarities are either due to convergent evolution or heredity, and the way you determine that is by investigating the ancestral lineages. You don't start and stop with the evidence of todays species.Homologies or analogies -- that is the question. No, I am suggesting that when you compare homologies and the actual lineage of today's species from ancestral species that you will find that the apparent similarity of wolf and thylacine diverge before they come together in an ancient common ancestor. Conversly the wolf and the bear will merge. Unfortunately for you, reality is completely unimpressed by your opinion, nor does it feel constrained in any way by your belief of what is true. Yes, every bear listed having the same number and pattern of teeth as the wolf, and no carnivore on the page having a pattern similar to the thylacine, fails to substantiate the point that wolves and bears are more similar than wolves and thylacines ... if you're a creationist that doesn't look at the evidence.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : .

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

The thylacine again for reference:

quote:

---

Tasmanian Wolf
Order: Dasyuromorphia
Family: Thylacinidae
Thylacinus cynocephalus
Skull Length: 22cm / 8.7"
Origin: Tasmania
Carnivore
Incisor 4 top / 3 bottom
Canine 1 top /1 bottom
Premolar 3 top /3 bottom
Molar 4 top / 4 bottom
x 2 sides = 46

---

I gave you a source to see how many teeth and which kinds:
Access denied
Access denied

quote:

---

Bat-eared Fox
Order: Carnivora
Family: Canidae
Otocyon megalotis
Average Skull Length: 11.4cm/4.5in
Origin: Africa
Carnivore
Incisor 3 top / 3 bottom
Canine 1 top /1 bottom
Premolar 4 top /4 bottom
Molar 3-4 top / 3-5 bottom
x 2 sides = 44-50

---

Similar molar count, still different incisor and premolar count. What you have is a carnivora species that evolved additional molars, but not additional premolars or additional incisors. No this animal does NOT match marsupial patterns. The fact is that this has been done and it has been done for some time. We don't need to reevaluate everything in science just to please your lack of understanding and ignorance based on your unwillingness to investigate the issue.

---

Note that the Bat-Eared Fox is on the list of carnivora that I supplied before: There are still no animals on that list that match the teeth pattern for the thylacine.Access denied

quote:

---

American Opossum
Order: Didelphimorphia
Family: Caluromyidae
Didelphis virginiana
Average Skull Length: 11cm / 4.3"
Origin: North America
Omnivore
Incisor 5 top / 4 bottom
Canine 1 top /1 bottom
Premolar 3 top /3 bottom
Molar 4 top / 4 bottom
x 2 sides = 50

---

Access denied

quote:

---

Woolly Opossum
Order: Didelphimorphia
Family: Caluromyidae
Caluromys sp.
Skull Length 5.5cm / 2.17"
Origin: Central and South America
Omnivore
Incisor 5 top / 4 bottom
Canine 1 top /1 bottom
Premolar 3 top /3 bottom
Molar 4 top / 4 bottom
x 2 sides = 50

---

Based on the teeth, the thylacine is more similar to these opossums than it is to wolf and bear. Funny that they also have pouches ....You can also look at the list for marsupials, similar to the one for carnivora
Access denied
and you can see the same kind of variation within marsupials as within carnivora.The classification of animals into the various taxons is not based on any one characteristic, but the whole animal. Arachnophilia's post showed two other features on the skulls where marsupials differ from mammals, there are others, and we haven't even started to talk about genetics.Taxonomists have been doing this at least 270 years since Linnaeus formalized a system of nomenclature ...
Carl Linnaeus - Wikipedia

quote:

---

The first edition of Systema Naturae was printed in the Netherlands in 1735. It was an eleven page work. By the time it reached its 10th edition (1758), it classified 4,400 species of animals and 7,700 species of plants.

---

... and the field of taxonomy was already old then.Do you really think you know something that everybody that has actually studied the subject somehow missed?Do you really think biologists and naturalists are ALL that dumb?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : fixed ubb
added material below lineEdited by RAZD, : .

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

What I'm telling you Randman is that taxonomists have looked, and continue to look, at every little detail to see how much each individual specimen differs from the others. They also know which elements are more useful in classifying animals than others, and teeth are one of the ones that turn out to be useful for this.You don't know this for the simple reason that you don't know this. Because convergent evolution DOESN'T HAVE TO. Nor do they need to turn marsupials into mammals. They don't need to make the foot usage \ articulation similar either, or the fur markings, or any of the other differences already mentioned. All that is needed is to fill the carnivorous approximately dog-size niche. Or in N.America, fill the carnivorous approximately thylacine size niche. AND they only need to be better at it than any other LOCAL resident, they don't compete (normally) with each other due to being on different CONTINENTS. Mutations don't produce niches. The environment produces niches, like grasslands in asia, africa, n.america, s.america and australia. Surprisingly there are grass-land dwelling animals in each one, SOME of which are similar to others and SOME of which are different. How many different kinds of hoofed animals do we need? Which is why it is evidence of evolution and not design eh? It would be pretty silly for a designer to do that.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : moreEdited by RAZD, : .

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

No, it is an opportunistic process. No, mutation alone is not evolution. Or the calculation that says the chances are remote are questioned (and usually found lacking, due to false assumptions). Statistics cannot prove something cannot occur.We do know that eyes have evolved several different times and in several different ways. We do know that wings have evolved several different times and in several different ways. Convergent evolution occurs because evolution is opportunistic, and it tends to find practical solutions to problems of survival and reproduction by a process of elimination.That the general appearance of the thylacine skeleton to the wolf skeleton are similar is not a great surprise -- they are also similar in general appearance to the eohippus skeleton. The details that separate each from eohippus also separate one from the other.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : .

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •