Thread: Evolution of animals

Why are australian animals so different to Europian ones? [linked with evolution]

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Another homework question. I've already helped you with one question, this is starting to smack of laziness.lack of study on yiur part. Post your answer first and we'll see if we can help. Getting answers to your homework here you won't learn much if anything.

true..
ok what i think is:
australian animals look different because of their environment. their fur would be thinner due to warmer temperature, their ears would be bigger and other features. but what i dont get is how did a similar species evolve to be a kangaroo.

australia's animals are very old
by the time nature found a better solution
australia had become isolated drifting away from antarctica

Why are australian animals so different to Europian ones?

Different climates, ecological areas and locations will cause different things to ADAPT to its own environment to which it is living.

If this is both evolution and homework, I suggest you start your reading about Australian animals with the monotremes (echidnas and platypus) and move on from there.

How dare u ask such a question, are u heretic

A most striking factor for consideration is the existence of numerous marsupial and placental mammals that are virtually identical to one another with the exception of the distinctions in their reproductive systems.

Convergent evolution basically says that two or more unrelated organisms evolved to have very similar characteristics independently. Not only does is this 'explanation' a cop-out, but it also undermines the whole principle of the similarity argument:

Firstly, it is irrational to claim that convergent evolution sufficiently explains all similarities in unrelated organisms (take the eye for instance which supposedly arose 30 different times!).

Secondly, it invalidates the similarity argument: if some similarities in unrelated organisms arose by convergent evolution, how do we know that other similarities in related organisms didn’t arise by convergent evolution? (Common ancestry is not needed anymore)

Details

Originally Posted by Some

How dare u ask such a question, are u heretic

A most striking factor for consideration is the existence of numerous marsupial and placental mammals that are virtually identical to one another with the exception of the distinctions in their reproductive systems.

Convergent evolution basically says that two or more unrelated organisms evolved to have very similar characteristics independently. Not only does is this 'explanation' a cop-out, but it also undermines the whole principle of the similarity argument:

Firstly, it is irrational to claim that convergent evolution sufficiently explains all similarities in unrelated organisms (take the eye for instance which supposedly arose 30 different times!).

Secondly, it invalidates the similarity argument: if some similarities in unrelated organisms arose by convergent evolution, how do we know that other similarities in related organisms didn’t arise by convergent evolution? (Common ancestry is not needed anymore)

Details

None of this crap is on topic and it is a show of Some's ignorance that he thought that it was on topic.

It's an anti-evolution driven load of hooey.

Originally Posted by Some

A most striking factor for consideration is the existence of numerous marsupial and placental mammals that are virtually identical to one another with the exception of the distinctions in their reproductive systems.

so uhm ... not THAT identical after all ?

Distinctions in their reproductive systems? Minor matters really.

Mammals who have pouches? Details, details.

Egg producers who suckle their young? Who notices once they're fully grown?

All looks identical to me unless you get picky about details. Snort. Sneer.

Originally Posted by sciencemad

Why are australian animals so different to Europian ones? [linked with evolution]

You might want to read up on the Wallace Line ...

Originally Posted by Some

How dare u ask such a question, are u heretic

There is nothing wrong with asking questions. It is making ignorant assertions (in Crackpot Font'n'Colors ^TM) that annoys.

it is irrational[/B] to claim that convergent evolution sufficiently explains all similarities in unrelated organisms

It is not irrational. It is based on evidence. Ignoring the evidence in favor of personal incredulity and myth is irrational.

it invalidates the similarity argument: if some similarities in unrelated organisms arose by convergent evolution, how do we know that other similarities in related organisms[/I] didn’t arise by convergent evolution[/B]?

Duh. Because they are related. Now wipe that drool of your chin.

Of course, I'm sure there are examples of convergent evolution in related species ... can't think of any right now. But that does absolutely nothing to contradict the direct evidence for inheritance, diversity, selection and evolution.

Convergent evolution is valid and has examples, true-e.g. Shark and dolphin- but that is not the topic here.
Some implied that the claim is that the marsupials are a product of convergent evolution with mammals. This Is False.
They are not a product of convergent evolution but of divergent evolution. They share a common ancestor with mammals.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Somes signature should be "The above is not to be taken as fact. It's something I've made up about something I don't understand."

I'll add that in, later.

Ohhh... you mean the member named "Some." I wish he'd change his name...

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Some implied that the claim is that the marsupials are a product of convergent evolution with mammals. This Is False.
They are not a product of convergent evolution but of divergent evolution. They share a common ancestor with mammals.

True.

I think what he might have been alluding to, in his typically jumbled and misinformed way, is the fact that there are marsupial equivalents of non-marsupial mammals; i.e. animals that have evolved to fill the same ecological niche (herbivore, predator, etc).

To which, once again, I can only say: well, duh. That is what evolution does: it fills available niches to exploit resources that aren't being exploited by others.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Some implied that the claim is that the marsupials are a product of convergent evolution with mammals. This Is False.
They are not a product of convergent evolution but of divergent evolution. They share a common ancestor with mammals.

True.

I think what he might have been alluding to, in his typically jumbled and misinformed way, is the fact that there are marsupial equivalents of non-marsupial mammals; i.e. animals that have evolved to fill the same ecological niche (herbivore, predator, etc).

To which, once again, I can only say: well, duh. That is what evolution does: it fills available niches to exploit resources that aren't being exploited by others.

Please bear with me as I go slightly off-topic for a question. Where do homo sapiens stand in terms of their ecological niche? I may be making a blanket statement here but, most modern human societies do not seem overly concerned with conservation of their environment in view of what I've surmised to be almost parasitic.

I hope this doesn't cause the thread to deviate from it's original topic, but I am curious.

Originally Posted by scoobydoo1

most modern human societies do not seem overly concerned with conservation of their environment in view of what I've surmised to be almost parasitic.

Every mammal would be called that if they were in our numbers and smarts. The basic behavior trait is to look out for self. Build a dam. Dig a burrow...
With our numbers and technology, the effect of our basic animal behavior is grossly magnified, is all.

do not confuse parasitic with symbiotic

Originally Posted by sculptor

do not confuse parasitic with symbiotic

With homo sapiens playing the part of the vessel, ferrying bacteria from destination to destination, and perhaps one day to the stars? Sure, that would give meaning to people frequently asking about the meaning of Life. We are evolving to bring our bacteria overlords to new planets where they might thrive.

Originally Posted by sculptor

do not confuse parasitic with symbiotic

Heh, you aren't saying human beings have a symbiotic relationship with the land, are you?

Originally Posted by sculptor

do not confuse parasitic with symbiotic

So your saying that the generally accepted definition of symbiosis, which includes parasitism, has been changed at some point in the last year?

aminals evolved cuz God told them if they didnt theyd be sorry


Edit: I just realized I inadvertently said something stupid. Not sure how this happened, but there has been such an influx of stupid lately, I think it may be contagious.

Originally Posted by sculptor

do not confuse parasitic with symbiotic

Like, don't confuse men with humans?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by sculptor

do not confuse parasitic with symbiotic

So your saying that the generally accepted definition of symbiosis, which includes parasitism, has been changed at some point in the last year?

I think it's one of those words where people quarrel over the meaning. Some think it should only refer to mutualistic relationships, while others think it should collectively refer to all three. The Oxford Dictionary treads eggshells with a diplomatic stance. I'll never understand why people form camps over the definition of a word, who cares... It's just a god-damned word.

Because clear definitions are much better than vague definitions.

symbiotic = mutually beneficial
paracitic on the other hand doesn't

land?

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Because clear definitions are much better than vague definitions.

That was my sentiment. I don't understand why a definition can't simply be decided - it's just a word. There ought to be a Word Committee that just sits there all day - debating the definitions of a word and ultimately deciding what it will mean.

Originally Posted by sculptor

symbiotic = mutually beneficial
paracitic on the other hand doesn't

land?

Per only ONE selected definition, which is contested by large segment of the biology community

swap = for indicates?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by sculptor

symbiotic = mutually beneficial
paracitic on the other hand doesn't

land?

Per only ONE selected definition, which is contested by large segment of the biology community

Stander-J, I see your point.

Originally Posted by sculptor

swap = for indicates?

HUH? This makes no sense at all

jeez dad
following the freaking bouncing ball
instead of
symbiotic = mutually beneficial
paracitic on the other hand doesn't

symbiotic indicates mutually beneficial
paracitic on the other hand doesn't

......................
pour me 'nuther whiskey
..................
how many of you younger folks don't understand the reference "follow the bouncing ball"

Originally Posted by sculptor

jeez dad
following the freaking bouncing ball
instead of
symbiotic = mutually beneficial
paracitic on the other hand doesn't

symbiotic indicates mutually beneficial
paracitic on the other hand doesn't

......................
pour me 'nuther whiskey

As is Have already pointed out, per ONE definition that is contested, and your second post was just gibberish so how was I to know that is what you were saying?

If you would stop posting in the ridiculous lyrics and communicate like the educated person you claim to be then that WOULDNT have happened.

ok
lets work on the contested definition

Originally Posted by sculptor

ok
lets work on the contested definition

Symbiosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaWhat is it that you want to work on exactly?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by sculptor

ok
lets work on the contested definition

Symbiosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaWhat is it that you want to work on exactly?

whatever it was that you guys think i got wrong
remember that i left the academy well over a generation ago

back then
symbiosis/symbiotic meant mutually beneficial
has that changed?
.............
I'm old. but i ain't to old to learn
........
from your link symbiotic can now mean parasitic(for some--who are these "others" ?)
jeez
wowie zowie
curiouser and curiouser
clarity disolves
.............
or, are the wiki folks totally freaking insane?

I would suggest first taking a look at the wiki page I linked you to, and start using regular English sentences ad grammar.

and then?

There are two words available. I don't see why it's agreeable they mean the same thing. I would vote for symbiotic as mutually beneficial and parasitic as not mutually beneficial as that is how they are commonly used, anyway. It makes more sense.

Originally Posted by sculptor

and then?

Really? Your not that ignorant. if you have questions after reading the article then ask them here

Originally Posted by Neverfly

There are two words available. I don't see why it's agreeable they mean the same thing. I would vote for symbiotic as mutually beneficial and parasitic as not mutually beneficial as that is how they are commonly used, anyway. It makes more sense.

And what do you do for the situations where its neither beneficial or parasitic for one of the parties? its much more complex then "this or that"

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

And what do you do for the situations where its neither beneficial or parasitic for one of the parties? its much more complex then "this or that"

Make up a new word.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

And what do you do for the situations where its neither beneficial or parasitic for one of the parties? its much more complex then "this or that"

Make up a new word.

If only it was that easy

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

And what do you do for the situations where its neither beneficial or parasitic for one of the parties? its much more complex then "this or that"

Make up a new word.

If only it was that easy

indeed - even a symbiotic relationship is a bit like the stalemate in the cold war : as soon as it becomes convenient for one of the parties to break the pact they do

remember also that even cases of commensalism are not always as innocuous : e.g. even when an epiphyte merely uses a tree as a support, the sheer quantity of epiphytes can utlmately assist in bringing the tree down

Moderator Comment: This is a discussion forum and therefore, on the face of it, anything that promotes discussion must be a good thing. An alternate view is that some discussion is of little or no value. I lean to the latter viewpoint.

Now in this thread there has been an extensive exchange of almost zero value generated by the intransigent behaviour of Sculptor who, despite many requests and recommendations over a long period of time, continues to use a faux artistic approach to grammar, communication and posting in general. My personal view is that this detracts rather than contributes to the quality of this forum. I am asking Sculptor for the last time to correct this annoying and anti-social abberation. Sculptor, if you choose not to make that change I shall be urging my fellow mods to agree to permanently ban you.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Moderator Comment: This is a discussion forum and therefore, on the face of it, anything that promotes discussion must be a good thing. An alternate view is that some discussion is of little or no value. I lean to the latter viewpoint.

I offer my apologies if I have contributed to the off-topic'ness of the thread.

I had merely wanted to know where/how our species stand in terms of the boundaries of our ecological niche, and as Neverfly has clarified; our numbers and environment manipulation capabilities amplified what I/we considered to be parasitic behavior when viewed alongside that which is exhibited by other animals.

Originally Posted by scoobydoo1

Originally Posted by John Galt

Moderator Comment: This is a discussion forum and therefore, on the face of it, anything that promotes discussion must be a good thing. An alternate view is that some discussion is of little or no value. I lean to the latter viewpoint.

I offer my apologies if I have contributed to the off-topic'ness of the thread.

You have absolutely nothing to apologise for. Threads often move away from the original topic and this can be productive and interesting. In this instance some of the responses seeking to correct or understand Sculptor were only necessary because of his self-indulgent posting style.

I am not sure of the extent to which this annoys or frustrates other members. It sure as hell has pissed me off for a considerable time. I have reported my moderator comment post in order to raise the issue with the rest of the mod team. In the meantime I hope that Sculptor will consider out of politness alone to ditch the affectations.

Originally Posted by scoobydoo1

I offer my apologies if I have contributed to the off-topic'ness of the thread.

Off topic'ness is not a word. Get it Right!

Originally Posted by scoobydoo1

I had merely wanted to know where/how our species stand in terms of the boundaries of our ecological niche, and as Neverfly has clarified; our numbers and environment manipulation capabilities amplified what I/we considered to be parasitic behavior when viewed alongside that which is exhibited by other animals.

Amplified is exactly how I see it and I believe it's so much a part of us that only a severe drop in human population and consumption demand will have any realistic effect. I realize a lot of people are more optimistic and hope that humans can learn. Others are political and don't want to advocate the sad reality.
I am not so optimistic; I believe we follow more programming than rational thought and the more you examine the general population trends as opposed to individual communication, the more apparent it seems.
That it is so fundamentally similar not just to modern mammals but very likely not so modern ones suggests an ancient and deeply evolved sense of self importance. The behavior traits cover such a broad spectrum of animals that the pattern may be as old as life itself. Especially if you consider us to be colonies of single celled life communally using the larger being to feed, reproduce and ensure safety- it appears very deeply engrained, indeed.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by sculptor

do not confuse parasitic with symbiotic

Heh, you aren't saying human beings have a symbiotic relationship with the land, are you?

At first,

symbiotic relationship with the land

rather confused me.
Contemplating the relationship humans have with dirt, and thinking of dirt as rather inert.
As I have pondered, I think I see your point, and herein, I perceive that Paleo's inclusion of parasitic within symbiotic has merit. Though I do feel more comfortable having the 2 words mutually exclusive, I can readilly see that at times, humans do seem to have been parasitic of the land, using up the nutreants in the soil, and leaving a parched wasteland in their unconcerned/(ignorant?) use of the resource.

Yeh, sometimes, in the give and take of the discussions, we do tend to wander off the main topic into eddies of inconsequence.
In contemplating why I often use a style that seems to bug some others, I think that what I am doing, is switching away from dissertation mode and more into the banter of conversational mode. It was never meant to be artsy fartsy or antisocial, quite the opposite actually. I had thought it a light hearted effort to share knowledge in a less serious way.
Long ago, and far away, I had had enough of being in command of others, and sought to reformulate my psyche as an individual instead of as a leader responsible for the actions and safety of others. Most of my dreams atleast, are now free of the anxiety of command and control, and, as part of this change, I have revisited many dreams of my youth.------off topic---In most of the dreamtime, I am younger than the guy in the mirror

The good thing about being banned, Is that I would invest my time elsewhere. The bad thing is that I would miss all of your knowledge and this thing that ofttimes feels like a front porch community of interests and like loves' of knowledge. People will do what people will do, and I don't want to be in control of anyone but me.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Moderator Comment: This is a discussion forum and therefore, on the face of it, anything that promotes discussion must be a good thing. An alternate view is that some discussion is of little or no value. I lean to the latter viewpoint.

Now in this thread there has been an extensive exchange of almost zero value generated by the intransigent behaviour of Sculptor who, despite many requests and recommendations over a long period of time, continues to use a faux artistic approach to grammar, communication and posting in general. My personal view is that this detracts rather than contributes to the quality of this forum. I am asking Sculptor for the last time to correct this annoying and anti-social abberation. Sculptor, if you choose not to make that change I shall be urging my fellow mods to agree to permanently ban you.

Wowie Zowie! That's a tad rad, dad.
Jeez, I had no idea
But if I had I wouldn't know where to put it.

........................................

I had a buddy so many years ago that was a contractor. Ran a construction crew.
I stopped by on his project, a downtown highrise, when I noticed he had a full grown chimpanzee on his crew.
No kiddin a chimp, not a man that looked like a chimp but
an ape.
He was usin a jackhammer, hard hat on his head.
jeez louise you ever see a chimp makin an honest livin?
Just goes to show
You can't judge a book by its cover.
He didn't quite have the catcalls down though,
he only whistled when dudes with beards walked by.

.........................................

We were in our twenties and smokin funny things.
Who'd a thunk it
32 years later, I'm still sitting here posting altered.

lol
(point taken)

back on topic:
When did placental mammals split from marsupials?
Surely while south america and australia were still connected to antarctica?

Originally Posted by sciencemad

Why are australian animals so different to Europian ones? [linked with evolution]

This guy will help you Alfred Russel Wallace - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and BBC Two - Bill Bailey's Jungle Hero, Wallace in Borneo, Bill?s Jungle Hero: Alfred Russel Wallace

Enjoy.