June 7, 2009

  • Convergent Evolution

    Evolution, if you will recall, is the adaption of a creature to it’s environment. If this is true, it would be assumed that different animals in similar enviroments would develop similar traits. This is exactly what we see, and is known as convergent evolution. It is a strong piece of evidence towards evolutionary theory. For example:


    All four of these species evolved in seclusion to each other, in areas with very large social insect mounds (Isoptera or Hymenoptera – termites or ants, which in themselves have converged on the trait of a eusocial structure). (Note: the Giant Armadillo is now extinct.) All of these animals have some very distinct traits that they all share: long, tubelike snout; long, sticky, retractible tongue to lap up insects; large curved claws for breaking into mounds. These shared traits are called analogous structures. But despite these similarities, there is substantial evidence to show that they all came from different ancestors. For example, Spiny Anteaters, or Echidnas, are monotremes, meaning they are egg-laying mammals (like platipi). South American anteaters are most closely related to sloths. Aardvarks, which are not shown above, but which share all these features as well, have been shown using molecular evidence that they are most closely related to elephants and sea cows. They all also appear on seperated continents.

    Cetaceans and fish both have fusiform (torpedo-like) shapes, with a tail fluke for locomotion.

    There are key differences in the form… the fluke of fishes is held vertically, while cetaceans (whales and dolphins) hold theirs horizontally. But there are plenty of striking differences that make it obvious that the dolphin is more closely related to cats and dogs than it is to the shark that it resembles so much. For example, the dolphin must surface to breath air through lungs, and cannot stay under to take in oxygen dissolved in the water via gills like the shark. The dolphin is endothermic (is warm-blooded), feeds its young via mammary glands, and has hair (albeit very little).

    Bats, birds, pterosaurs and insects all can (or could, in the case of pterosaurs) fly. But all have quite different ways of doing it, and all have extremely different ancestors.

    As you can see in this pterosaur wing, the skin is stretched along the first digit of the arm, with the other digits staying very small.

    This bird wing shows that the wing is made up of all the bones of the arm, not just the pointer finger.

    This bat wing shows that the wing is made up of skin stretched along the arm, between all the digits of the arm, and connecting to the leg.

    An insect wing, as I’m sure you all know, has no bones (just like the insect it is attached to). It is merely a membrane stretched between veins.
    And obviously, all these animals are not very closely related. Flying insects (known as pterygotes) are descendants of apterygotes (non-flying insects) like collembolans (springtails). Pterosaurs are descendants of archosaurs (the common ancestors of the dinosaurs as well). Birds are descendants of therapod dinosaurs (dinos that stood on their hind feet). Bats are a bit of a mystery, but it is believed that they are most closely related to lemurs.

    Convergance is seen as a support for evolutionary theory because if we look at intelligent design the same way that humans design, this pattern just doesn’t make sense. If life were designed by humans, we would similar functions to be performed by similar features, much like the GPS used in boats, cars, cell phones and planes. Instead, we see the same task being served by multiple structures.

    Random Biology Fact: Elephants are the only mammals that cannot jump.

Comments (20)

  • Nicely done. =]

    ps: Elephants are too fat to jump? Or they don’t have the ability?

  • You’re doing a great job with these.  They’re interesting, understandable and persuasive.  

  • Great job breaking down complex material! This is very accessible. I can’t believe there are people that still don’t believe in evolution.

  • from looking at the armadillo and aardvark photo at the top, how come the northern continents species have “armor” and the southern have fur?  Is this a commonality between hemispheres?  If you don’t know can you suggest a site to read?  

  • Great post again.  You probably already planned on doing this, but if not, you should do one on homologous structures too. (Bat wing, of course, made me think of it)

  • Just as a curiosity – when did the word “evolution” begin being used in place of “adaptation”?  I’m honestly asking, because in the 1996-2000 era when I was in highschool the two words weren’t used interchangably like evoutionists use them now.  Seems like the definitions have been changed to make “evolution” more commonplace.  

  • @lovechartreuse - it probably has to do with the fact that they have “4 knees.”

  • Pressed through the same environmental constraints, different stuff produces the same shape.

  • i learned about analogous characteristics in 9th grade biology.  this is a good refresher. 

  • @ElijahDH - I honestly have no idea. I’m from the years past when you described, so it’s always been this way to me.

    @RealityDreams - I don’t know if their external features have anything to do with a North vs South thing. I know the Pangolin is armored to prevent the insects it eats from biting back, and the giant armadillo had to deal with some really nasty critters like giant ground sloths and sabre toothed cats.

    @Strangebrain - Just one more post I’ll forget to do. Good call though.

  • @ElijahDH - Considering the terms by definition aren’t technically interchangeable, I can only imagine this misuse of these two different words can be traced back to some creationist who didn’t know what he was talking about.

  • @GodlessLiberal - Ah, ok then.  It just seems like it would avoid confusion to use “adaptation” for incremental changes and “evolution” for actual inter-special leaps.  We didn’t have to rehash the definitions as much when that was the norm.

    @drung888 - Pay closer attention. I referrenced high school as being the source.  Baseless slams of the “us vs them” mentality aren’t necessary.

  • @ElijahDH - I’m sorry if my statement offended you in any way.  What I meant was that some individual way back then started to use the terms indiscriminately and then someone else heard it and then started using it the same way and then someone else heard it…and eventually it just became one widespread misuse of the words.  If there’s anyone to blame, it’s that first individual.

    And for the record, evolution refers to just any change whether it be positive, negative, or neutral (most common type).  On the other hand, adaptation merely refers to the positive type of evolution, the type of change that results in a better fit population. 

  • @GodlessLiberal – This paragraph just struck me:  “Convergance is seen as a support for evolutionary theory because if we look at intelligent design the same way that humans design…”  I’m sure that you could come up with other arguments for why convergence supports evolutionary theory, but surely you can see that the “this isn’t how humans would do it” standpoint isn’t relevant.  Are there really any Creationists out there who think that a human is Creator? ;-]  As a Creationist who has casually read up on the debated evidences for many years, I’ve found that the sheer amount of innovation (for lack of a better word) in allowing similar functions to be accomplished in many different ways is a huge testament to the creativity of a God who loves variety. 

    @drung888 - No prob, and thanks for the clarification. 

  • @ElijahDH - What other model do we have to go on besides the types of design we’ve seen performed by humans? We have no other type of design to compare it to.

  • Lots of other mammals can’t jump.  Sloths, hippos, sea cows, some burrowing rodents, most bats, giraffes, rhinos, platypuses, most all marine mammals, and even the anteaters you mentioned.  YOU AND YOUR LIBERAL LIES OF GODLESSNESS AND LIES AND DECEIT ACCEPT JESUS TODAY!!!1!1!11one

  • @GodlessLiberal - :-/  You’ve presumed that there are no alternatives and have declared that your evidence (Convergence) rests on that foundation (that human creation is the only alternative).  Evidence, by definition, is not evidence if it requires a preconception in order to support a conclusion.  Evidence stands on its own, and conclusions flow from it, not into it.  

    To put it plainly, you’re basing your remark on faulty logic.  Scientific conclusions can never be based on the unsubstantiated dismissal of alternatives.  You’ve dismissed God’s design so completely that you won’t even acknowledge it as a possibility.  Feel free to criticise me for posing a theory and not proving it, but the issue remains that unscientific dismissal of alternatives is the basis of the “evidence” you provided here.

  • @ElijahDH - Convergent evolution is the BEST theory to describe the features described here. Does this mean there are no alternates? No. But does that mean we should ignore all scientific theory because there’s an alternate, no matter how slim the odds of it being true are? Not in the least.

  • @GodlessLiberal - I’ll clarify.  You said: ”Convergance is seen as a support for evolutionary theory because if we look at intelligent design the same way that humans design, this pattern just doesn’t make sense.”  You have made a conclusion erroneously; evidence is never conditional (ie: on the condition that human design is the only possible alternative).  
    You’re also arguing against things I never said. I never said anything about “ignoring all scientific theory”.  Quite to the contrary – I’m asking you to be consistent with the conventions of science – not to base arguments on presumptions and to recognize that evidence never has qualifying conditions. 
    But does that mean we should ignore all scientific theory because there’s an alternate, no matter how slim the odds of it being true are? Not in the least.”  - That is exactly what you are doing to Creationism, isn’t it?  Ignoring it because you consider the odds to be slim?  It that’s not the case, then please clarify. 

  • Normal
    0

    7.8 磅
    0
    2

    false
    false
    false

    MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

    /* Style Definitions */
    table.MsoNormalTable
    {mso-style-name:普通表格;
    mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
    mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
    mso-style-noshow:yes;
    mso-style-parent:”";
    mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
    mso-para-margin:0cm;
    mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
    mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
    font-size:10.0pt;
    font-family:”Times New Roman”;
    mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
    mso-ansi-language:#0400;
    mso-fareast-language:#0400;
    mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

    It is too beautiful, The  <a href="<a href="Cheap
    Ed hardy, If you need these <a href="cheap
    Ed hardy T, Carefully choose these <a href="ed
    hardy shoes, then appropriate action, go <a href="ed
    hardy clothing

Post a Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *