nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 50:
Line 50: +
→I would think…: More story-telling
:True, it is not conclusive. Very few arguments taken in isolation are. However, this is just another example of an evolutionary [[just so story]]—pure speculation without any evidence and almost certainly requiring multiple interdependent biological changes, not the sort of thing that would come about "with a mutation". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:45, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
:True, it is not conclusive. Very few arguments taken in isolation are. However, this is just another example of an evolutionary [[just so story]]—pure speculation without any evidence and almost certainly requiring multiple interdependent biological changes, not the sort of thing that would come about "with a mutation". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:45, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
::Are you talking about the scientific understanding of evolution of a backward facing pouch? I have never seen an evolutionary argument that says the wombat's pouch did a 180 degree rotation from front facing to backwards facing over a long period of time, rather that koalas and wombats are more closely related, and developed pouches that face backward, while other marsupials developed pouches that faced forward. It is not necessary to start from the position of a fully formed pouch: take monotremes: platypuses don't have a pouch, and an echidna has a temporary pouch. For live births with very small young, a pouch confers benefits. The direction would be less important.[[User:Myrtle|Myrtle]] 08:20, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
::Are you talking about the scientific understanding of evolution of a backward facing pouch? I have never seen an evolutionary argument that says the wombat's pouch did a 180 degree rotation from front facing to backwards facing over a long period of time, rather that koalas and wombats are more closely related, and developed pouches that face backward, while other marsupials developed pouches that faced forward. It is not necessary to start from the position of a fully formed pouch: take monotremes: platypuses don't have a pouch, and an echidna has a temporary pouch. For live births with very small young, a pouch confers benefits. The direction would be less important.[[User:Myrtle|Myrtle]] 08:20, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Perhaps you could tell us what the evolutionary understanding is? Proposing that pouches evolved separately twice is just making the evolutionary story even more incredible. Have you ever seen a pouch that is incomplete (not fully-formed/fully-evolved)? I'd suggest that such a thing is more evolutionary story-telling. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:34, 24 July 2007 (EDT)