|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Marsupial evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pete OS Junior Member (Idle past 6120 days) Posts: 31 Joined: |
It is often said, it support of evolution, that the marsupials are "more similar" to each other then to their similar looking placental counterpart. This was one of the major lines of evidence that convinced me of evolution. But I would like to dig deeper into this. When scientists say they are more similar, to they refer to bone structure or genetic similarities? Indeed, these must both be true if in reality they evolved from a more recent common ancestor then they share with the placentals; but exactly which lines is more obvious to scientists? Is there a site where the specific evidence is drawn out, perhaps with pictures of the bone structures or descriptions of similar mutations in non-coding dna shared by the marsupials but not the placentals?
Thank you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
When scientists say they are more similar, to they refer to bone structure or genetic similarities? Both. In simple terms placentals and marsupials differ in their morphology, the epipubis is apparantly a dead giveaway. Genetically, a marsupial mouse is closer to a kangaroo than it is to a placental mouse. An interesting thread that covered this issue can be found here - I give you the last post, because it is only the last half of this thread that goes into it, so work backwards. A better, but shorter thread might be Sequence comparisons (Bioinformatics?).
but exactly which lines is more obvious to scientists? With both the genetic and morphological data in front of them, I'd imagine the genetic data would be much more obvious. However, the genetic data is a little harder to get hold of Hopefully that should start you in the right direction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5929 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
Is there a site where the specific evidence is drawn out, perhaps with pictures of the bone structures? I don't know about a site, but a great book for you to read would be this one: K.F. Liem, W.E. Bemis, W.F. Walker. & L. Grande. (2001) Functional Anatomy of the Vertebrates: An Evolutionary Perspective. I hope to get some of this stuff up on the EvoWiki soon, when I have time. I think morphology is a better form of evidence than genetic homology, because it is easier understood by the layman (that is, the people who are most likely to doubt evolutionary theory). Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others. Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pete OS Junior Member (Idle past 6120 days) Posts: 31 Joined: |
Thank you Modulous. This is a good start. I have skimmed over the Bioinformatics thread and it does indeed look like the sort of genetic evidence evolution would suggest, and also, something I might have fun doing! Someday I might see if a laymen like myself can start using this program, it would be fun to make genetic tree of life comparisons of my own.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pete OS Junior Member (Idle past 6120 days) Posts: 31 Joined: |
That looks like a textbook that is probably a wee bit over my head (and over my price range!) but thanks for the reccomendation. I see I can get a 1994 version for $3.00 so I might consider that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
You might want to look into the history. The genetic data is a relatively new thing. Before then and before cladistics, taxonomy was based on morphology alone. Not just the skeletal structure but the soft parts, too.
When an earlier discussion focussed on the skeletal similarities between the wolf and the thylacine, one thing that cropped up was the teeth. Wolves have distinctively canine teeth. Thylacine teeth are quite different. They really are easy to tell apart if you look at dentition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
This might possibly be of help. It's surprisingly straightforward, really - just gotta get stuck in!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
This was one of the major lines of evidence that convinced me of evolution.
Many marsupial mammals have their counterparts in placental mammals. Placental and marsupial moles and placental vs. marsupial wolfs are most striking examples of so called convergence between them. Skull of marsupial wolf is so similar to skull of canis lupus that only an expert knowing teeth formula of the species can distinguish them. Such "convergent" evolution prove more evolution governed by law (Nomogenesis or PEH) as darwinistic natural selection as source of it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Such "convergent" evolution prove more evolution governed by law (Nomogenesis or PEH) as darwinistic natural selection as source of it. Unfortunately for you such theories were completely disproven by the evidence given in "More Evidence of Evolution - Geomyidae and Geomydoecus".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: No, you don't have to be an expert if you get a good look at the teeth. I can easily tell them apart. You would need a little specialised knowledge to know which is which - but only a little. The differences are obvious and anyobdy should be able to see them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pete OS Junior Member (Idle past 6120 days) Posts: 31 Joined: |
I think the fact that each marsupial is "closer" both genetically and elsewise to eachother then to its counterpart is striking evidence of a common ancestor. However, the fact that it DID happen that they are so similar to a counterpart is still very strange to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
It is often said, it support of evolution, that the marsupials are "more similar" to each other then to their similar looking placental counterpart. Kangaroo
Platypus
Koala
Hmmmmm, yes, I see what you mean.
When scientists say they are more similar, to they refer to bone structure or genetic similarities? Both, usually.
Indeed, these must both be true if in reality they evolved from a more recent common ancestor then they share with the placentals A degree of morphological similarity does not necessarily indicate an analogous DNA sequence. Or I should say, its not that impressive. What is impressive in the defense of classic Darwinian evolution is shared errors in coding. That lends far more credence than anything else, IMO. And as you can see, a Tasmanian Wolf has more morphological similarities with its placental counterpart, the Dingo Dingo
And yet, there is no relation. Likewise, a Kangaroo Rat, which is a marsupial
looks more like a typical rat or mouse.
And yet, there is no relation. Looks can be deceiving. "God is like the sun. You can't look at it. But without it you can't look at anything else." -G.K. Chesterton
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 857 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
FYI NJ, a platypus is a monotreme, not a marsupial. Monotremes lay eggs and have only one hole for peein', poopin', and birthin', like birds and reptiles. Also marsupials have live births, albeit much less developed than placental mammals.
I would use scientific terms here but it is readily apparent you are not familiar with the literature. Edited by anglagard, : add term placental since all are mammals, would hate to be sloppy when criticizing another's sloppiness Edited by anglagard, : precision.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
However, the fact that it DID happen that they are so similar to a counterpart is still very strange to me. I don't know just how odd it should seem, but consider that marsupials and placentals all descended from an ancestor that was already in possession of four legs, fur, a particular style of jaw, a three-bone middle ear, live births and milk glands.....quite a lot in common. And consider the wolf and the thylacine: both make/made their living mostly by hunting smallish critters, and relied on being able to gover lots of ground in a day. Both need to be able to snap up a rat-sized meal. How many different ways are there to make a living like that, given the constraints their common ancestry puts on them?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024