Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Marsupial dogs, another problem with evolutio

janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 3:32:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
How do you explain marsupial dogs, flying squirrels, moles, and saber toothed cats, with nearly identical body plans to that of the placental mammals? In the case of the marsupial dog, it in nearly impossible to tell the two skulls apart.

Please don't say "convergence", as that is what it's called, and NOT an explanation? HOW did it happen?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 7:50:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 3:32:48 PM, janesix wrote:
How do you explain marsupial dogs, flying squirrels, moles, and saber toothed cats, with nearly identical body plans to that of the placental mammals? In the case of the marsupial dog, it in nearly impossible to tell the two skulls apart.

Please don't say "convergence", as that is what it's called, and NOT an explanation? HOW did it happen?

Form follows function. If the niche an animal is trying to survive in is similar, than the 2 animals will evolve similar body plans.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 8:19:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 3:32:48 PM, janesix wrote:
How do you explain marsupial dogs, flying squirrels, moles, and saber toothed cats, with nearly identical body plans to that of the placental mammals? In the case of the marsupial dog, it in nearly impossible to tell the two skulls apart.

Simple, Jane: Evolution isn't linear.

Mutation can produce multiple approaches to solving the problem of species competition. Some of those approaches (like hunting) might be similar, while other approaches (like reproduction) might be different. So you can get cat-like animals filling cat-like niches (because cat-like form and function work well there), yet reproducing quite differently. If both approaches are successful, you'll get divergent species. If one species is consistently less successful over time, you'll get extinction -- if they are competing.

But not species must be in the same time, place and niche to compete. When marsupials occupied Australia for example, it is thought that they had no placental competition until humans arrived with domesticated species, and this may have helped them survive.

But regardless, marsupials have their own advantages -- including lower birth-weights, more pregnancies, and stronger bite-force among the carnivores. That in itself can work better in some environments than others.

However, placentals have a huge number of advantages, including a shorter nursing period, higher growth efficiency, higher cranial development due to blood-based nutrition, a more complex brain anatomy, and more developmental complexity due to slower gestation. So we might expect placentals to do better over all once they gain a toehold, and that's what has happened.

But in no sense are marsupials 'less evolved' than placentals -- they're an offshoot, also highly adapted. They just adapted with a different reproductive strategy -- one highly successful when every warm-blooded species is using it, but less successful in many environments when there are placentals competing for similar niches.

I hope that may help.

Helpful Links
* Hume, Ian, Reading the entrails of evolution, New Scientist, 1989: http://www.newscientist.com...
* Buehler, Jacob, Metatherians (Pt2/2): Odd Living Representatives, Sh*t You Didn't Know About Biology (Blogsite) http://sydkab.com...
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 9:06:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 7:50:56 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:32:48 PM, janesix wrote:
How do you explain marsupial dogs, flying squirrels, moles, and saber toothed cats, with nearly identical body plans to that of the placental mammals? In the case of the marsupial dog, it in nearly impossible to tell the two skulls apart.

Please don't say "convergence", as that is what it's called, and NOT an explanation? HOW did it happen?

Form follows function. If the niche an animal is trying to survive in is similar, than the 2 animals will evolve similar body plans.

How? It's not possible with random mutations. You would have to have thousands of the same mutations, probably in the same general order, in order to come up with almost the exact same form. That's a lot of lucky breaks.
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 9:13:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 8:19:05 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:32:48 PM, janesix wrote:
How do you explain marsupial dogs, flying squirrels, moles, and saber toothed cats, with nearly identical body plans to that of the placental mammals? In the case of the marsupial dog, it in nearly impossible to tell the two skulls apart.

Simple, Jane: Evolution isn't linear.

Mutation can produce multiple approaches to solving the problem of species competition. Some of those approaches (like hunting) might be similar, while other approaches (like reproduction) might be different. So you can get cat-like animals filling cat-like niches (because cat-like form and function work well there), yet reproducing quite differently. If both approaches are successful, you'll get divergent species. If one species is consistently less successful over time, you'll get extinction -- if they are competing.

But not species must be in the same time, place and niche to compete. When marsupials occupied Australia for example, it is thought that they had no placental competition until humans arrived with domesticated species, and this may have helped them survive.

But regardless, marsupials have their own advantages -- including lower birth-weights, more pregnancies, and stronger bite-force among the carnivores. That in itself can work better in some environments than others.

However, placentals have a huge number of advantages, including a shorter nursing period, higher growth efficiency, higher cranial development due to blood-based nutrition, a more complex brain anatomy, and more developmental complexity due to slower gestation. So we might expect placentals to do better over all once they gain a toehold, and that's what has happened.

But in no sense are marsupials 'less evolved' than placentals -- they're an offshoot, also highly adapted. They just adapted with a different reproductive strategy -- one highly successful when every warm-blooded species is using it, but less successful in many environments when there are placentals competing for similar niches.

I hope that may help.

Helpful Links
* Hume, Ian, Reading the entrails of evolution, New Scientist, 1989: http://www.newscientist.com...
* Buehler, Jacob, Metatherians (Pt2/2): Odd Living Representatives, Sh*t You Didn't Know About Biology (Blogsite) http://sydkab.com...

You make some interesting points. But it couldn't have come from a series of random mutations. And looking in some cases almost exactly the same? There has to be some kind of natural growth laws that "push" species to certain forms.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 11:15:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 9:06:16 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 7:50:56 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:32:48 PM, janesix wrote:
How do you explain marsupial dogs, flying squirrels, moles, and saber toothed cats, with nearly identical body plans to that of the placental mammals? In the case of the marsupial dog, it in nearly impossible to tell the two skulls apart.

Please don't say "convergence", as that is what it's called, and NOT an explanation? HOW did it happen?

Form follows function. If the niche an animal is trying to survive in is similar, than the 2 animals will evolve similar body plans.

How? It's not possible with random mutations. You would have to have thousands of the same mutations, probably in the same general order, in order to come up with almost the exact same form. That's a lot of lucky breaks.

Mutations are not wholly random. They occur more frequently in some areas of the genome than others. There are also error correcting codes.

Another point is that the same mutation does not cause the same phenotype (that's body plan) in different animals. The selective pressure of having teeth that chew and capture food make any mutation that aids in that development more propagated through the species.

There are wholes in macroevolution. This just isn't one of them. Take for instance a vast varieties of dogs, all those different shapes and sizes come from the dog genome and some were bred to be dominate features that started out as mutations.

It has even been hinted at that stress can cause the error correcting code to slack off and cause more mutations. As a way to encourage the species to adapt.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 11:18:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 9:13:11 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 8:19:05 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:32:48 PM, janesix wrote:
How do you explain marsupial dogs, flying squirrels, moles, and saber toothed cats, with nearly identical body plans to that of the placental mammals? In the case of the marsupial dog, it in nearly impossible to tell the two skulls apart.

Simple, Jane: Evolution isn't linear.

Mutation can produce multiple approaches to solving the problem of species competition. Some of those approaches (like hunting) might be similar, while other approaches (like reproduction) might be different. So you can get cat-like animals filling cat-like niches (because cat-like form and function work well there), yet reproducing quite differently. If both approaches are successful, you'll get divergent species. If one species is consistently less successful over time, you'll get extinction -- if they are competing.

But not species must be in the same time, place and niche to compete. When marsupials occupied Australia for example, it is thought that they had no placental competition until humans arrived with domesticated species, and this may have helped them survive.

But regardless, marsupials have their own advantages -- including lower birth-weights, more pregnancies, and stronger bite-force among the carnivores. That in itself can work better in some environments than others.

However, placentals have a huge number of advantages, including a shorter nursing period, higher growth efficiency, higher cranial development due to blood-based nutrition, a more complex brain anatomy, and more developmental complexity due to slower gestation. So we might expect placentals to do better over all once they gain a toehold, and that's what has happened.

But in no sense are marsupials 'less evolved' than placentals -- they're an offshoot, also highly adapted. They just adapted with a different reproductive strategy -- one highly successful when every warm-blooded species is using it, but less successful in many environments when there are placentals competing for similar niches.

I hope that may help.

Helpful Links
* Hume, Ian, Reading the entrails of evolution, New Scientist, 1989: http://www.newscientist.com...
* Buehler, Jacob, Metatherians (Pt2/2): Odd Living Representatives, Sh*t You Didn't Know About Biology (Blogsite) http://sydkab.com...

You make some interesting points. But it couldn't have come from a series of random mutations. And looking in some cases almost exactly the same? There has to be some kind of natural growth laws that "push" species to certain forms.

Its the reason why the planets are all the same shape. Its also the same reason why the early plane models were a jumbled mess. Some planes had 10 wings stacked on top of each other. But then humans realized that there are more efficient, sturdy methods of producing planes, and the biplane became standard, and then they became single wing planes, and now, all the jet fighters look essentially the same.

And before you say "But that involved humans who made a decision", the only decision, the only realization is efficiency. And this is, as i pointed out before, occuring in nature, with the most obvious example being the planets, which all just happen to take a spherical shape. Whether you go to Vega, 1000 lightyears away, or right here on planet earth, planets are spherical. This is because a spherical shape is the most efficient, gravity-wise.

With regards to evolution, weve found that specific types of bodies are most efficient in specific environments and specific tasks. You might as well be asking why Bats who use echolocation, underwater fishes in caves, and moles, all have poor to non-existant eyesight, despite belonging to different groups.
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2015 12:29:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 11:18:19 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/31/2015 9:13:11 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 8:19:05 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:32:48 PM, janesix wrote:
How do you explain marsupial dogs, flying squirrels, moles, and saber toothed cats, with nearly identical body plans to that of the placental mammals? In the case of the marsupial dog, it in nearly impossible to tell the two skulls apart.

Simple, Jane: Evolution isn't linear.

Mutation can produce multiple approaches to solving the problem of species competition. Some of those approaches (like hunting) might be similar, while other approaches (like reproduction) might be different. So you can get cat-like animals filling cat-like niches (because cat-like form and function work well there), yet reproducing quite differently. If both approaches are successful, you'll get divergent species. If one species is consistently less successful over time, you'll get extinction -- if they are competing.

But not species must be in the same time, place and niche to compete. When marsupials occupied Australia for example, it is thought that they had no placental competition until humans arrived with domesticated species, and this may have helped them survive.

But regardless, marsupials have their own advantages -- including lower birth-weights, more pregnancies, and stronger bite-force among the carnivores. That in itself can work better in some environments than others.

However, placentals have a huge number of advantages, including a shorter nursing period, higher growth efficiency, higher cranial development due to blood-based nutrition, a more complex brain anatomy, and more developmental complexity due to slower gestation. So we might expect placentals to do better over all once they gain a toehold, and that's what has happened.

But in no sense are marsupials 'less evolved' than placentals -- they're an offshoot, also highly adapted. They just adapted with a different reproductive strategy -- one highly successful when every warm-blooded species is using it, but less successful in many environments when there are placentals competing for similar niches.

I hope that may help.

Helpful Links
* Hume, Ian, Reading the entrails of evolution, New Scientist, 1989: http://www.newscientist.com...
* Buehler, Jacob, Metatherians (Pt2/2): Odd Living Representatives, Sh*t You Didn't Know About Biology (Blogsite) http://sydkab.com...

You make some interesting points. But it couldn't have come from a series of random mutations. And looking in some cases almost exactly the same? There has to be some kind of natural growth laws that "push" species to certain forms.

Its the reason why the planets are all the same shape. Its also the same reason why the early plane models were a jumbled mess. Some planes had 10 wings stacked on top of each other. But then humans realized that there are more efficient, sturdy methods of producing planes, and the biplane became standard, and then they became single wing planes, and now, all the jet fighters look essentially the same.

And before you say "But that involved humans who made a decision", the only decision, the only realization is efficiency. And this is, as i pointed out before, occuring in nature, with the most obvious example being the planets, which all just happen to take a spherical shape. Whether you go to Vega, 1000 lightyears away, or right here on planet earth, planets are spherical. This is because a spherical shape is the most efficient, gravity-wise.

With regards to evolution, weve found that specific types of bodies are most efficient in specific environments and specific tasks. You might as well be asking why Bats who use echolocation, underwater fishes in caves, and moles, all have poor to non-existant eyesight, despite belonging to different groups.

I completely agree. Laws of nature. Not random mutation. Things fit where it makes sense. There must be some mechanism other than random mutation for this to be possible.

Not designed, self-organized.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2015 1:56:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 9:13:11 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 8:19:05 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

Mutation can produce multiple approaches to solving the problem of species competition. Some of those approaches (like hunting) might be similar, while other approaches (like reproduction) might be different. So you can get cat-like animals filling cat-like niches (because cat-like form and function work well there), yet reproducing quite differently.
You make some interesting points. But it couldn't have come from a series of random mutations. And looking in some cases almost exactly the same? There has to be some kind of natural growth laws that "push" species to certain forms.

Yes -- there is. Creatures competing for the same niche eat the same food, hunt the same quarry, and must evade the same predators. So their body-plan will benefit the same way.

For example, many cats are mid-sized, solitary forest ambush predators. They benefit from being lithe, clawed climbers and jumpers with great balance, that can see well in the dark. That means their eyes will be front, with wide pupils, their claws will be long, they'll spend a lot of time in relaxed repose, they'll have great vision for movement, a soft step, great whiskers for navigating undergrowth and foliage in darkness, a whiplike tail for balance, and they'll pounce explosively. If they don't adapt to occupy that niche, something else will, and will become more cat-like.

Or take dogs: a mid-sized grassland pack-hunter. For concealment they'll benefit from being lower than the grass, will therefore have a longer muzzle for a great sense of smell, good hearing for prey-location and coordination, eyes in the corners of the skull to coordinate with pack activity, and elevated tails for silent signalling, will demonstrate loyalty and pack cohesion, and will trot tirelessly for great distances. Since they'll harry and disable, they'll be agile darters, preferring to nip more than slash, so that plus the trotting means they won't need big claws -- and they'll have light, springy legs, to conserve energy when traveling great distances.

Each niche favours certain strategies, and therefore certain functions, which in turn favours certain shapes. That plus the fact that every creature with a spine essentially has a modified fish-head (two eyes, nose below, mouth at bottom and ears at the side), means that certain shapes (e.g. cat-head, dog-head, horse-head) will be found faster than something weird.

I hope that may make more sense.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2015 2:11:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 7:50:56 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:32:48 PM, janesix wrote:
How do you explain marsupial dogs, flying squirrels, moles, and saber toothed cats, with nearly identical body plans to that of the placental mammals? In the case of the marsupial dog, it in nearly impossible to tell the two skulls apart.

Please don't say "convergence", as that is what it's called, and NOT an explanation? HOW did it happen?

Form follows function. If the niche an animal is trying to survive in is similar, than the 2 animals will evolve similar body plans.

Are you defending evolution?
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2015 7:38:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 12:29:38 AM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 11:18:19 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/31/2015 9:13:11 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 8:19:05 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:32:48 PM, janesix wrote:
How do you explain marsupial dogs, flying squirrels, moles, and saber toothed cats, with nearly identical body plans to that of the placental mammals? In the case of the marsupial dog, it in nearly impossible to tell the two skulls apart.

Simple, Jane: Evolution isn't linear.

Mutation can produce multiple approaches to solving the problem of species competition. Some of those approaches (like hunting) might be similar, while other approaches (like reproduction) might be different. So you can get cat-like animals filling cat-like niches (because cat-like form and function work well there), yet reproducing quite differently. If both approaches are successful, you'll get divergent species. If one species is consistently less successful over time, you'll get extinction -- if they are competing.

But not species must be in the same time, place and niche to compete. When marsupials occupied Australia for example, it is thought that they had no placental competition until humans arrived with domesticated species, and this may have helped them survive.

But regardless, marsupials have their own advantages -- including lower birth-weights, more pregnancies, and stronger bite-force among the carnivores. That in itself can work better in some environments than others.

However, placentals have a huge number of advantages, including a shorter nursing period, higher growth efficiency, higher cranial development due to blood-based nutrition, a more complex brain anatomy, and more developmental complexity due to slower gestation. So we might expect placentals to do better over all once they gain a toehold, and that's what has happened.

But in no sense are marsupials 'less evolved' than placentals -- they're an offshoot, also highly adapted. They just adapted with a different reproductive strategy -- one highly successful when every warm-blooded species is using it, but less successful in many environments when there are placentals competing for similar niches.

I hope that may help.

Helpful Links
* Hume, Ian, Reading the entrails of evolution, New Scientist, 1989: http://www.newscientist.com...
* Buehler, Jacob, Metatherians (Pt2/2): Odd Living Representatives, Sh*t You Didn't Know About Biology (Blogsite) http://sydkab.com...

You make some interesting points. But it couldn't have come from a series of random mutations. And looking in some cases almost exactly the same? There has to be some kind of natural growth laws that "push" species to certain forms.

Its the reason why the planets are all the same shape. Its also the same reason why the early plane models were a jumbled mess. Some planes had 10 wings stacked on top of each other. But then humans realized that there are more efficient, sturdy methods of producing planes, and the biplane became standard, and then they became single wing planes, and now, all the jet fighters look essentially the same.

And before you say "But that involved humans who made a decision", the only decision, the only realization is efficiency. And this is, as i pointed out before, occuring in nature, with the most obvious example being the planets, which all just happen to take a spherical shape. Whether you go to Vega, 1000 lightyears away, or right here on planet earth, planets are spherical. This is because a spherical shape is the most efficient, gravity-wise.

With regards to evolution, weve found that specific types of bodies are most efficient in specific environments and specific tasks. You might as well be asking why Bats who use echolocation, underwater fishes in caves, and moles, all have poor to non-existant eyesight, despite belonging to different groups.

I completely agree. Laws of nature. Not random mutation. Things fit where it makes sense. There must be some mechanism other than random mutation for this to be possible.

Not designed, self-organized.

Sure, which is natural selection. But that doesnt mean Mutations arent random, though. Natural selection filters through the random mutations.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2015 11:13:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 2:11:13 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/31/2015 7:50:56 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:32:48 PM, janesix wrote:
How do you explain marsupial dogs, flying squirrels, moles, and saber toothed cats, with nearly identical body plans to that of the placental mammals? In the case of the marsupial dog, it in nearly impossible to tell the two skulls apart.

Please don't say "convergence", as that is what it's called, and NOT an explanation? HOW did it happen?

Form follows function. If the niche an animal is trying to survive in is similar, than the 2 animals will evolve similar body plans.

Are you defending evolution?

Life changes with time. I never denied that. I can distinguish between the origins of a system and it's evolution.
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2015 4:10:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 1:56:23 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/31/2015 9:13:11 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 8:19:05 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

Mutation can produce multiple approaches to solving the problem of species competition. Some of those approaches (like hunting) might be similar, while other approaches (like reproduction) might be different. So you can get cat-like animals filling cat-like niches (because cat-like form and function work well there), yet reproducing quite differently.
You make some interesting points. But it couldn't have come from a series of random mutations. And looking in some cases almost exactly the same? There has to be some kind of natural growth laws that "push" species to certain forms.

Yes -- there is. Creatures competing for the same niche eat the same food, hunt the same quarry, and must evade the same predators. So their body-plan will benefit the same way.

For example, many cats are mid-sized, solitary forest ambush predators. They benefit from being lithe, clawed climbers and jumpers with great balance, that can see well in the dark. That means their eyes will be front, with wide pupils, their claws will be long, they'll spend a lot of time in relaxed repose, they'll have great vision for movement, a soft step, great whiskers for navigating undergrowth and foliage in darkness, a whiplike tail for balance, and they'll pounce explosively. If they don't adapt to occupy that niche, something else will, and will become more cat-like.

Or take dogs: a mid-sized grassland pack-hunter. For concealment they'll benefit from being lower than the grass, will therefore have a longer muzzle for a great sense of smell, good hearing for prey-location and coordination, eyes in the corners of the skull to coordinate with pack activity, and elevated tails for silent signalling, will demonstrate loyalty and pack cohesion, and will trot tirelessly for great distances. Since they'll harry and disable, they'll be agile darters, preferring to nip more than slash, so that plus the trotting means they won't need big claws -- and they'll have light, springy legs, to conserve energy when traveling great distances.

Each niche favours certain strategies, and therefore certain functions, which in turn favours certain shapes. That plus the fact that every creature with a spine essentially has a modified fish-head (two eyes, nose below, mouth at bottom and ears at the side), means that certain shapes (e.g. cat-head, dog-head, horse-head) will be found faster than something weird.

I hope that may make more sense.

How does DNA know the exact , perfect change to make? This is another thing I wonder about. Looks very designed to me. Since I don't believe in a designer, there has to be something else going on.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2015 4:16:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 4:10:10 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/1/2015 1:56:23 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/31/2015 9:13:11 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 8:19:05 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

Mutation can produce multiple approaches to solving the problem of species competition. Some of those approaches (like hunting) might be similar, while other approaches (like reproduction) might be different. So you can get cat-like animals filling cat-like niches (because cat-like form and function work well there), yet reproducing quite differently.
You make some interesting points. But it couldn't have come from a series of random mutations. And looking in some cases almost exactly the same? There has to be some kind of natural growth laws that "push" species to certain forms.

Yes -- there is. Creatures competing for the same niche eat the same food, hunt the same quarry, and must evade the same predators. So their body-plan will benefit the same way.

For example, many cats are mid-sized, solitary forest ambush predators. They benefit from being lithe, clawed climbers and jumpers with great balance, that can see well in the dark. That means their eyes will be front, with wide pupils, their claws will be long, they'll spend a lot of time in relaxed repose, they'll have great vision for movement, a soft step, great whiskers for navigating undergrowth and foliage in darkness, a whiplike tail for balance, and they'll pounce explosively. If they don't adapt to occupy that niche, something else will, and will become more cat-like.

Or take dogs: a mid-sized grassland pack-hunter. For concealment they'll benefit from being lower than the grass, will therefore have a longer muzzle for a great sense of smell, good hearing for prey-location and coordination, eyes in the corners of the skull to coordinate with pack activity, and elevated tails for silent signalling, will demonstrate loyalty and pack cohesion, and will trot tirelessly for great distances. Since they'll harry and disable, they'll be agile darters, preferring to nip more than slash, so that plus the trotting means they won't need big claws -- and they'll have light, springy legs, to conserve energy when traveling great distances.

Each niche favours certain strategies, and therefore certain functions, which in turn favours certain shapes. That plus the fact that every creature with a spine essentially has a modified fish-head (two eyes, nose below, mouth at bottom and ears at the side), means that certain shapes (e.g. cat-head, dog-head, horse-head) will be found faster than something weird.

I hope that may make more sense.

How does DNA know the exact , perfect change to make? This is another thing I wonder about. Looks very designed to me. Since I don't believe in a designer, there has to be something else going on.

That question is like coming upon a puddle in a pothole after a storm and wondering how the cloud knew where to dump all the rain.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2015 4:28:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 4:10:10 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/1/2015 1:56:23 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Each niche favours certain strategies, and therefore certain functions, which in turn favours certain shapes. That plus the fact that every creature with a spine essentially has a modified fish-head (two eyes, nose below, mouth at bottom and ears at the side), means that certain shapes (e.g. cat-head, dog-head, horse-head) will be found faster than something weird.
How does DNA know the exact , perfect change to make? This is another thing I wonder about. Looks very designed to me. Since I don't believe in a designer, there has to be something else going on.

It doesn't, Jane. DNA actually works to replicate itself perfectly. It has many checks in place to avoid imperfect replication. However, despite that, statistically, some mutations get through.

Some are direly harmful. Most are neutral. A few are just slightly beneficial. But in a big enough population, over long enough time, whatever is possible eventually occurs -- more than once. If any of those individuals get lucky and benefit by the change, then their reproduction will pass it on. And so, a small statistical edge -- a fraction of a percent of benefit on a one in a million occurrence -- becomes a major species change over time.

In your other evolution thread, I've recently linked some videos testing exactly how this can occur. It's wonderful and bizarre at the same time. :)
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2015 4:31:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 2:11:13 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/31/2015 7:50:56 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:32:48 PM, janesix wrote:
How do you explain marsupial dogs, flying squirrels, moles, and saber toothed cats, with nearly identical body plans to that of the placental mammals? In the case of the marsupial dog, it in nearly impossible to tell the two skulls apart.

Please don't say "convergence", as that is what it's called, and NOT an explanation? HOW did it happen?

Form follows function. If the niche an animal is trying to survive in is similar, than the 2 animals will evolve similar body plans.

Are you defending evolution?

Are you asking me? I can't tell. But I prefer to discuss God in the religious forums, not in science.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2015 9:34:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 4:31:01 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/1/2015 2:11:13 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/31/2015 7:50:56 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:32:48 PM, janesix wrote:
How do you explain marsupial dogs, flying squirrels, moles, and saber toothed cats, with nearly identical body plans to that of the placental mammals? In the case of the marsupial dog, it in nearly impossible to tell the two skulls apart.

Please don't say "convergence", as that is what it's called, and NOT an explanation? HOW did it happen?

Form follows function. If the niche an animal is trying to survive in is similar, than the 2 animals will evolve similar body plans.

Are you defending evolution?

Are you asking me? I can't tell. But I prefer to discuss God in the religious forums, not in science.

No I wasn't asking you, I was asking Mhykiel. It's the Reply & Quote feature. As for your comment, I didn't mention God. As far as evolution is concerned, your 2 sentence OP does not even put a dent in evolution. The simple answer, as everyone has already explained is niches and convergence. To say you want an explanation then say "don't say convergence!" means that you want us to explain to you what convergence is.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2015 9:35:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 11:13:40 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/1/2015 2:11:13 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/31/2015 7:50:56 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:32:48 PM, janesix wrote:
How do you explain marsupial dogs, flying squirrels, moles, and saber toothed cats, with nearly identical body plans to that of the placental mammals? In the case of the marsupial dog, it in nearly impossible to tell the two skulls apart.

Please don't say "convergence", as that is what it's called, and NOT an explanation? HOW did it happen?

Form follows function. If the niche an animal is trying to survive in is similar, than the 2 animals will evolve similar body plans.

Are you defending evolution?

Life changes with time. I never denied that. I can distinguish between the origins of a system and it's evolution.

How?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2015 9:50:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 9:35:30 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 4/1/2015 11:13:40 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/1/2015 2:11:13 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/31/2015 7:50:56 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:32:48 PM, janesix wrote:
How do you explain marsupial dogs, flying squirrels, moles, and saber toothed cats, with nearly identical body plans to that of the placental mammals? In the case of the marsupial dog, it in nearly impossible to tell the two skulls apart.

Please don't say "convergence", as that is what it's called, and NOT an explanation? HOW did it happen?

Form follows function. If the niche an animal is trying to survive in is similar, than the 2 animals will evolve similar body plans.

Are you defending evolution?

Life changes with time. I never denied that. I can distinguish between the origins of a system and it's evolution.

How?

Well that's been discussed before.

but because i don't like talking to you. I'll make this simple.

As things evolve the original information in the system degrades. this is why there is some junk DNA, why there is vestigial organs, ect..

So roll back the clock and that means you have to have a beginning in which things were efficient and without that junk.

Can you tell the difference between a car of the assembly line and a rusted pile of scrap that becomes the home to some raccoons?

Do you think the car was made of the assembly line to house raccoons?
Bennett91
Posts: 4,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2015 1:52:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 9:50:39 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/1/2015 9:35:30 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 4/1/2015 11:13:40 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/1/2015 2:11:13 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/31/2015 7:50:56 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:32:48 PM, janesix wrote:
How do you explain marsupial dogs, flying squirrels, moles, and saber toothed cats, with nearly identical body plans to that of the placental mammals? In the case of the marsupial dog, it in nearly impossible to tell the two skulls apart.

Please don't say "convergence", as that is what it's called, and NOT an explanation? HOW did it happen?

Form follows function. If the niche an animal is trying to survive in is similar, than the 2 animals will evolve similar body plans.

Are you defending evolution?

Life changes with time. I never denied that. I can distinguish between the origins of a system and it's evolution.

How?

Well that's been discussed before.

but because i don't like talking to you. I'll make this simple.

As things evolve the original information in the system degrades. this is why there is some junk DNA, why there is vestigial organs, ect..

If it degrades how do you even know what the original info was? How can you tell what is junk now wasn't useful before? If something is ID then would it not change? To say it was designed to adapt is a cop out that piggie backs on evolution while you claim credit for ID.

So roll back the clock and that means you have to have a beginning in which things were efficient and without that junk.

I don't like you either. Mainly because you pull presuppositional BS like this. You assume the first organisms were efficient without junk, or that they were even efficient (had they been they would have evolved into today's diversity). ID in general is unfalsifiable. If everything is intelligently designed how can you tell what isn't intelligently designed?

Can you tell the difference between a car of the assembly line and a rusted pile of scrap that becomes the home to some raccoons?

Terrible and over simplified analogy. What is your point?

Do you think the car was made of the assembly line to house raccoons?

Given that we don't know why the car was placed where it was placed, all we can do is guess as to why that car is there. For all we know cars where made to house raccoons.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2015 2:24:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 9:50:39 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/1/2015 9:35:30 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 4/1/2015 11:13:40 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/1/2015 2:11:13 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/31/2015 7:50:56 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:32:48 PM, janesix wrote:
How do you explain marsupial dogs, flying squirrels, moles, and saber toothed cats, with nearly identical body plans to that of the placental mammals? In the case of the marsupial dog, it in nearly impossible to tell the two skulls apart.

Please don't say "convergence", as that is what it's called, and NOT an explanation? HOW did it happen?

Form follows function. If the niche an animal is trying to survive in is similar, than the 2 animals will evolve similar body plans.

Are you defending evolution?

Life changes with time. I never denied that. I can distinguish between the origins of a system and it's evolution.

How?

Well that's been discussed before.

but because i don't like talking to you. I'll make this simple.

As things evolve the original information in the system degrades. this is why there is some junk DNA, why there is vestigial organs, ect..

So roll back the clock and that means you have to have a beginning in which things were efficient and without that junk.

Can you tell the difference between a car of the assembly line and a rusted pile of scrap that becomes the home to some raccoons?

Do you think the car was made of the assembly line to house raccoons?

According to information theory, random unpredictability maximizes information, so i guess the DNA at the beginning, which was a jumbled mess, had the most information, whereas today, where DNA contains much more order, has less information?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2015 5:07:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/2/2015 2:24:35 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/1/2015 9:50:39 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/1/2015 9:35:30 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 4/1/2015 11:13:40 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/1/2015 2:11:13 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/31/2015 7:50:56 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:32:48 PM, janesix wrote:
How do you explain marsupial dogs, flying squirrels, moles, and saber toothed cats, with nearly identical body plans to that of the placental mammals? In the case of the marsupial dog, it in nearly impossible to tell the two skulls apart.

Please don't say "convergence", as that is what it's called, and NOT an explanation? HOW did it happen?

Form follows function. If the niche an animal is trying to survive in is similar, than the 2 animals will evolve similar body plans.

Are you defending evolution?

Life changes with time. I never denied that. I can distinguish between the origins of a system and it's evolution.

How?

Well that's been discussed before.

but because i don't like talking to you. I'll make this simple.

As things evolve the original information in the system degrades. this is why there is some junk DNA, why there is vestigial organs, ect..

So roll back the clock and that means you have to have a beginning in which things were efficient and without that junk.

Can you tell the difference between a car of the assembly line and a rusted pile of scrap that becomes the home to some raccoons?

Do you think the car was made of the assembly line to house raccoons?

According to information theory, random unpredictability maximizes information, so i guess the DNA at the beginning, which was a jumbled mess, had the most information, whereas today, where DNA contains much more order, has less information?

The entropy in information theory is suggesting possible states of bits. The scenario is considered maximal when all the bits of the system can have all possible states. This is saying information as potential states is more in random DNA. This is also because once a pattern in the bots is discovered than any additional bots to describe more states than what can be predicted is considered redundant which lowers efficiency.

The encoded message of the DNA is destroyed with that mutation. It's not saying "jcbnAEWIUB;FIUAES;IARW" has more information than "you are confused".

See the message "you are confused" is a message in that it can be processed and effects a change in your brain chemistry a lot more intensive than the random letters.
desertdawg
Posts: 73
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 10:25:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 3:32:48 PM, janesix wrote:
How do you explain marsupial dogs, flying squirrels, moles, and saber toothed cats, with nearly identical body plans to that of the placental mammals? In the case of the marsupial dog, it in nearly impossible to tell the two skulls apart.

Please don't say "convergence", as that is what it's called, and NOT an explanation? HOW did it happen?

One slight modification of the DNA code of any living organism can cause many noticeable differences of the same basic body structure.
When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace. -Jimi Hendrix-
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 12:49:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/2/2015 5:07:46 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/2/2015 2:24:35 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/1/2015 9:50:39 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/1/2015 9:35:30 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 4/1/2015 11:13:40 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/1/2015 2:11:13 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/31/2015 7:50:56 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:32:48 PM, janesix wrote:
How do you explain marsupial dogs, flying squirrels, moles, and saber toothed cats, with nearly identical body plans to that of the placental mammals? In the case of the marsupial dog, it in nearly impossible to tell the two skulls apart.

Please don't say "convergence", as that is what it's called, and NOT an explanation? HOW did it happen?

Form follows function. If the niche an animal is trying to survive in is similar, than the 2 animals will evolve similar body plans.

Are you defending evolution?

Life changes with time. I never denied that. I can distinguish between the origins of a system and it's evolution.

How?

Well that's been discussed before.

but because i don't like talking to you. I'll make this simple.

As things evolve the original information in the system degrades. this is why there is some junk DNA, why there is vestigial organs, ect..

So roll back the clock and that means you have to have a beginning in which things were efficient and without that junk.

Can you tell the difference between a car of the assembly line and a rusted pile of scrap that becomes the home to some raccoons?

Do you think the car was made of the assembly line to house raccoons?

According to information theory, random unpredictability maximizes information, so i guess the DNA at the beginning, which was a jumbled mess, had the most information, whereas today, where DNA contains much more order, has less information?

The entropy in information theory is suggesting possible states of bits. The scenario is considered maximal when all the bits of the system can have all possible states. This is saying information as potential states is more in random DNA. This is also because once a pattern in the bots is discovered than any additional bots to describe more states than what can be predicted is considered redundant which lowers efficiency.

The encoded message of the DNA is destroyed with that mutation. It's not saying "jcbnAEWIUB;FIUAES;IARW" has more information than "you are confused".

See the message "you are confused" is a message in that it can be processed and effects a change in your brain chemistry a lot more intensive than the random letters.

Not if im trying to decode "jcbnAEWIUB;FIUAES;IARW" in order to make sense of the message.