Convergent evolution

[Ganoderma]

some good points. but perhaps function is used rather loosely. birds 'n bats for example.

 

they both have common traits as in they have eyes, can fly etc. but when you look at their wings their form is quite different. bats have fingers and skin in between, birds can fly because of their feathers....their bones are different...i dont *think* an average bird could fly if it had bones like a bat...and it certainly couldn't with just little fuzz instead of feathers. i have not studied either of these groups, but it would seem to that a bat could probably be said to not have wings and have hands, but that is totally just guessing it...they do seem rather far apart in that to achieve a similar goal they have developed different structures, which just mildly look similar in few ways. maeb im on my own on this one lol.

 

i would say the same for caecilians and snakes.they both use concertina movement, but used in different ways. snakes for the most part use their belly scales/muscles, while caecilians use their skulls, and entire body. guess its all the same depending where we want to draw the line

 

 

some neat links, not really that relevant here but cool nonetheless.

 

Digimorph - Dermophis mexicanus (Mexican Burrowing Caecilian)

Gymnophiona.org

Snake locomotion

[Moontanman]

some good points. but perhaps function is used rather loosely. birds 'n bats for example.

 

they both have common traits as in they have eyes, can fly etc. but when you look at their wings their form is quite different. bats have fingers and skin in between, birds can fly because of their feathers....their bones are different...i dont *think* an average bird could fly if it had bones like a bat...and it certainly couldn't with just little fuzz instead of feathers. i have not studied either of these groups, but it would seem to that a bat could probably be said to not have wings and have hands, but that is totally just guessing it...they do seem rather far apart in that to achieve a similar goal they have developed different structures, which just mildly look similar in few ways. maeb im on my own on this one lol.

 

I agree, bats have more in common with pterodactyls than birds.

 

i

would say the same for caecilians and snakes.they both use concertina movement, but used in different ways. snakes for the most part use their belly scales/muscles, while caecilians use their skulls, and entire body. guess its all the same depending where we want to draw the line :)

 

you are assuming that Caecilians all burrow, this is not true, many species live like snakes or eels.

[Ganoderma]

yes, sorry i forgot to mention that was terrestrial. the only hands on study i have done were with Dermophis mexicana...they are the only ones i have raised, so my knowledge on aquatic ones is limited and only from reading.

 

 

how about mosses/ferns and mushrooms having spores.....hugely different, but also similar.

[Moontanman]

yes, sorry i forgot to mention that was terrestrial. the only hands on study i have done were with Dermophis mexicana...they are the only ones i have raised, so my knowledge on aquatic ones is limited and only from reading.

 

 

how about mosses/ferns and mushrooms having spores.....hugely different, but also similar.

 

I think it's important to remember that the study of one species does not give a person knowledge of the entire genus or type of animal. If I had only studied sea snakes it wouldn't give me much of an idea of how most snakes live. On the on the other hand there are snakes that are underground dwellers as well as lizards and amphiumas. It might be interesting to see how similar these creatures are to underground dwelling caecilians.

[Ganoderma]

agreed.

 

However in this example mode of movement is rather different even with worm lizards, legless lizards, and burrowing snakes (i have kept and studied a few species of those as well, except the worm lizards, only read about them) in comparison to terrestrial caecilians. although they do share a more or less common bond in outer body shape, and being able to burrow to different degrees.

 

 

for kicks i looked at wiki on this topic: Convergent evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

their photo example is Euphorbia obesa and Astrophytum asterias. this seems fitting in this conversation in that although their surface appears similar they are in fact quite different. for example, on is a euphorbia the other is a cactus. cacti have areoles, the former doesnt. ok, not a biggy here. but lets look at another cool trait with cacti is their cortex and corticle bundles (ok its 4 am and i am probably spelling things horribly wrong, forgive me). this allows the space from the central "core" (where the phloem/xylem are - vascular bundle) to the skin (called the cortex) to be able to get pretty large. this is why you can find cacti so fat, but things like euphorbia tend not to be, and if they are they also tend to have at least a much smaller succulent area.

 

in this example, perhaps something like Lophophora williamsii and Astrophytum asterias would be more fitting, in more ways....but they are far more closely related.

 

 

another kind of not so the same example might be parasitic plants and fungi...for example dutch mans pipe and any number of fungi.....Amanita muscaria are a pretty example common to much of the world.

[HydrogenBond]

From Wikipedia:

One of the most famous examples of convergent evolution is the camera eye of cephalopods (e.g. squid), vertebrates (e.g. mammals) and cnidaria (e.g. box jellies).[4] Their last common ancestor had at most a very simple photoreceptive spot, but a range of processes led to the progressive refinement of this structure to the advanced camera eye - with one subtle difference; the cephalopod eye is "wired" in the opposite direction, with blood and nerve vessels entering from the back of the retina, rather than the front as in vertebrates.[1] The similarity of the structures in other respects, despite the complex nature of the organ, illustrates how there are some biological challenges (vision) that have an optimal solution.

 

Things like a single head, a single brain, 2, 4 or 6 legs/arms, a pump for a heart, male/female were all biological challenges with optimal solutions. This doesn't contradict random changes within the DNA nor does it contradict selective advantage. It simply shows the best solutions to major biological challenges are few in number. When it appears in the DNA, off to the races. Lessor challenges like the color of the hair on that single head, can diverge since there is not really one optimal solution for all critters in all places.

[nevaeh.aaric]

I think convergent evolution is a perfect example of animals evolving to suit their niches.

Similar environmental challenges being solves with similar means.

Nature might be cruel, but she's very economical.

I think it supports evolution way more than the fun dies might think.

[Chacmool]

I think convergent evolution is a perfect example of animals evolving to suit their niches.

Similar environmental challenges being solves with similar means.

Nature might be cruel, but she's very economical.

I think it supports evolution way more than the fun dies might think.

Boerseun's words, not yours. Please acknowledge your sources.