Convergent evolution

[Moontanman]

I think it is also interesting that you don't see huge herbivorous snakes sliding around, most large herbivores conform to certain body shapes as well.

[Getting A Life]

I am in agreeance with what you are saying MTM except me 'not believing' in convergent evolution. The pictures are great thanks.

I was trying to point out that convergent evolution not only displays similar form, but the form denotes similar function - thus explaining a bit about why convergent evolution appears. Thanks to Craig, too.

I'm fascinated by natural 'function'. So many plans tested over geological time. With convergent evolution not only do we get to see these plans in working displays, they're also peer reviewed in other organisms. (ok, now I'm taking liberties...)

I find it difficult not to anthropomorphize animals. Not if you've seen a bit of kanzi...

YouTube - Kanzi with lexigram

Pretty impressive.

[Moontanman]

Sorry Getting a life, my mistake, BTW how do you get a life? I want to know I need one

[Getting A Life]

No problem.

Well, getting a life... Having been blinded by a fundamentalist background I am only recently 'enlightened'. So I have gone back to school and am learning about science.

Upon dropping the god paradigm I had a bit of an existential quandary - what now? Finally realised I needed to be engaged with life at some level for it to make sense. Now I'm busy learning science I've never been happier.

Purpose. Being purposeful. Getting a life.

Back to discuss evolution later, I'm off to an Alan Carr clinic see if they can't hypnotise me into not smoking... Very cynical, we shall see.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Getting A Life

No problem.

Well, getting a life... Having been blinded by a fundamentalist background I am only recently 'enlightened'. So I have gone back to school and am learning about science.

Upon dropping the god paradigm I had a bit of an existential quandary - what now? Finally realised I needed to be engaged with life at some level for it to make sense. Now I'm busy learning science I've never been happier.

Purpose. Being purposeful. Getting a life.

Back to discuss evolution later, I'm off to an Alan Carr clinic see if they can't hypnotise me into not smoking... Very cynical, we shall see.

You're a brave man "getting a life" very few people are brave enough to even question their world view much less actually change it. My hats off to you for sure. I hope the hypnosis works

[Boerseun]

Back to the OP - why would convergent evolution be in support of the idea that evolution never happened?

Whales' closest living family is the hippopotamus, if memory serves. Whatever the case may be, their closest relatives are land-based mammals. Yet you would never say so on the face of it, because if truth be told, they look like fish. Fins, the works. Sleek hydrodynamic design, everything.

I think convergent evolution is a perfect example of animals evolving to suit their niches. Similar environmental challenges being solves with similar means. Nature might be cruel, but she's very economical. I think it supports evolution way more than the fundies might think.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

Back to the OP - why would convergent evolution be in support of the idea that evolution never happened?

Whales' closest living family is the hippopotamus, if memory serves. Whatever the case may be, their closest relatives are land-based mammals. Yet you would never say so on the face of it, because if truth be told, they look like fish. Fins, the works. Sleek hydrodynamic design, everything.

I think convergent evolution is a perfect example of animals evolving to suit their niches. Similar environmental challenges being solves with similar means. Nature might be cruel, but she's very economical. I think it supports evolution way more than the fundies might think.

This isn't the first place I found this idea but it is expressed here the same way.


Creation versus Evolution :: Truth Watch :: Test Everything, Hold on to the Good

The numerous examples in biology of so-called "parallel evolution" in which completely different species have developed similar features or skills on supposedly different evolutionary paths also contradict the random-chance premise of evolution. This is more adequately explained by the creationist view of there being a common designer who has elected to use common design features in different creatures.

[Ganoderma]

some good points. but perhaps function is used rather loosely. birds 'n bats for example.

they both have common traits as in they have eyes, can fly etc. but when you look at their wings their form is quite different. bats have fingers and skin in between, birds can fly because of their feathers....their bones are different...i dont *think* an average bird could fly if it had bones like a bat...and it certainly couldn't with just little fuzz instead of feathers. i have not studied either of these groups, but it would seem to that a bat could probably be said to not have wings and have hands, but that is totally just guessing it...they do seem rather far apart in that to achieve a similar goal they have developed different structures, which just mildly look similar in few ways. maeb im on my own on this one lol.

i would say the same for caecilians and snakes.they both use concertina movement, but used in different ways. snakes for the most part use their belly scales/muscles, while caecilians use their skulls, and entire body. guess its all the same depending where we want to draw the line


some neat links, not really that relevant here but cool nonetheless.

Digimorph - Dermophis mexicanus (Mexican Burrowing Caecilian)
Gymnophiona.org
Snake locomotion

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Ganoderma

some good points. but perhaps function is used rather loosely. birds 'n bats for example.

they both have common traits as in they have eyes, can fly etc. but when you look at their wings their form is quite different. bats have fingers and skin in between, birds can fly because of their feathers....their bones are different...i dont *think* an average bird could fly if it had bones like a bat...and it certainly couldn't with just little fuzz instead of feathers. i have not studied either of these groups, but it would seem to that a bat could probably be said to not have wings and have hands, but that is totally just guessing it...they do seem rather far apart in that to achieve a similar goal they have developed different structures, which just mildly look similar in few ways. maeb im on my own on this one lol.

I agree, bats have more in common with pterodactyls than birds.

i

would say the same for caecilians and snakes.they both use concertina movement, but used in different ways. snakes for the most part use their belly scales/muscles, while caecilians use their skulls, and entire body. guess its all the same depending where we want to draw the line

you are assuming that Caecilians all burrow, this is not true, many species live like snakes or eels.

[Ganoderma]

yes, sorry i forgot to mention that was terrestrial. the only hands on study i have done were with Dermophis mexicana...they are the only ones i have raised, so my knowledge on aquatic ones is limited and only from reading.


how about mosses/ferns and mushrooms having spores.....hugely different, but also similar.