Evolution: Shouldn't the Kangaroos be at least similar to their ancestors & not so different?

Question

www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/ science/07/12/australia. fossils.reut/index.html PLEASE read this article at cnn.com U will need to copy & paste the address & then BEFORE u hit GO--delete the space before the s in science & the f in fossils (I had to add spaces to have yahoo NOT add elipses to the address)

I am confused... this is NOT an evolution/creationism question so if that is ur thing don't bug me... my ? is Why are the kangaroos so very different from their ancestors. Generally speaking we are like apes, so u can see the supposed flow from ape to man. However to go from 4 legged galloping carnivore to 2 legged hopping herbivore seems not to flow as neatly. Does anyone ACTUALLY know anything about this?? Again please, I really just want to see if I can get an intelligent answer not sarcasim, wit or mean responses. THANKS

Again... PLEASE this is not a question on religion... it is just a question on a evolutionary basis. Also, thanks to the people who understood this & the great answers that I have been given!! Really appreciated! I am jazzed that real questions can be posed on here & real people will try to help! What an amazing collective & positive harnessing of that information!! THANKS

Bighorn: in your world the theory of evolution may not hold any water...but I am wondering if READING SKILLS have also been thrown out?? As mentioned above this question worked under the idea that evolution is true. So, thanks for your time but seriously why whistle into the wind, dude??

Answer 1

If you look at the more 'primitive' members of the Diprotodont order, the species that are physiologically more similar to the ancestors of kangaroos, you can see how the traits we think of as being typical of a kangaroo evolved.

Critters like potaroos and bettongs look very similar to the possums and other basal Diprotodonts, but with slightly enlarged hind legs that allow rapid ricochetal locomotion when required (usually to escape predators).

Compare those with the slightly more longer-legged species, like the banded hare-wallaby, and then a rufous hare-wallaby, then an agile wallaby, and you can see a steady progression towards the 'kangaroo shape'.

The red kangaroo actually has a highly derived body style, considerably modified from that original possum body form. The fossil form Procoptodon was even more derived, with a single huge toe, and standing 10 feet high. But even amongst living organisms, it is easy to see a transitional series of successful body forms that leads to the two-legged hopping critters. It is even more pronounced when looking at fossils, but these are harder to find on the web.

Answer 2

Kangaroos followed a path common to a lot of animals, for example Pandas, they have a carnivore's digestive system but a herbivore's diet.
Iguanas are insect eaters but Galapagos' ones are algae eaters.
So a change in diet is not uncommon at all.
You say we are like APES, but most of their monkey ancestors are four legged, and most of apes are almost bipedal, humans are the only true bipedal amongst primates.
So at the end, kangaroos are bipedal because this is faster than the way its ancestors were. And are herbivorous because grass is a good food.

Answer 3

EVOLUTION

The introduction to Genesis and to the whole Bible ascribes everything to the living God, creating, making, acting, moving, and speaking. There is no room for evolution without a flat denial of Divine revelation. One must be true the other false. All of God’s works are good, great, wondrous, and perfect.

Man starts from nothing. He begins in helplessness, ignorance, and inexperience. All his works, therefore, proceed on the principle of evolution. This principle is only seen in human affairs: from the hut to the palace; from the canoe to the ocean liner; from the spade to the plowshare to machines. But the birds build their nests today as at the beginning. There is growth and development within man, but no passing, change, or evolution out from one into another.

For this theory or fallacy of evolution to be true there would be evident stages of evolution today. You would be able to find species in many stages of evolution in nature right now. For this theory or fallacy of evolution to be true there would be no God. And that’s exactly what evolutionists believe and are trying prove. The evolutionist bases his or her conclusions on human assumptions and reasoning, instead of on the documentary evidence of the manuscripts.

Answer 4

their is no such thing as evolution. their is no proof of such.if a monkey goes to bed and sleeps for 3,000 years[ if he lives that long] when he wakes up and looks in the mirro. he still going to be a monkey. will not change into something else.this i know for sure

Answer 5

Interesting question.Check out this site.
rainforest-austrailia.com/
lumholtz_tree_kangaroo.htm

It gives a little theory on evolution.