If all organisms, including man, evolved from the same species, just like the Theory of Evolution has "proven", does that mean a beaver or otter had a 3-some with a duck and a Tazmanian devil, and that the current platypus is a descendent of that off-spring? The platypus resembles all three animals, so therefore, they must have had an orgy of some sort.
2006-09-01 06:14:23 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Zoology
Ok, so aparently my question isn't making much sense, so let me simplify it to everyone: Where did the platypus come from? If God didn't create it, who/what did and what is the ancestor, since all organisms have a common ancestor (that is according to the Evolution Theory)?
2006-09-01 06:44:51 · update #1
The duck billed platypus belongs to the Monotremata, which are more closely related to marsupials than mammals with a placenta.
Generally you should learn about the term homology and convergence. Characteristics which superficially look very similar and perform the same function, like the insect and the bird wing do not have to be derived from the same body parts. Nobody would claim that a bat and a moth are more closely related just because they both can fly than a bat and a cat.
You should also learn more about genetics and compatibility of genes. Sex across species is generally impossible and if artificially produced unsuccessful. A threesome you suggest is not only a physical impossibility but a genetic one as well.
2006-09-03 06:23:01 · answer #1 · answered by convictedidiot 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The duck-billed platypus is not a "result of an orgy" it is the result of convergent evolution. This theory states that different animals that do not have a common ancestor but exist in similar environments will evolve similar characteristics to fufill their needs. A duck-billed platypus lives life similar to the way ducks and beavers do so it evolved webbed feet, a bill, and a rudder tail for shaping mud.
2006-09-01 08:55:40 · answer #2 · answered by Isis-sama 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well in an aboriginal myth, the platypus came about when a water rat kidnapped a duck for his wife... the story served as a parable to warn young women about the dangers of kidnap
Interestingly, it has recently been shown that some genes on one of the platypus's sex chromosomes are similar to those in birds. But don't get excited - the reason for this is that the platypus is one of the few last survivors of monotremes - a mammal group that split off from other mammal groups at a very early stage.
Of course, you could ignore this and take old parables as the literal truth anyway, but then you would be missing the point of the parables wouldn't you?
2006-09-01 06:28:37 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
I'm afraid that your additional information shows that if there is a wrong end of a stick, you will grab it unfailingly.
"since all organisms have a common ancestor ". Who told you that, or did you deliberately mis-read it? I suppose, if we went back to some procaryote it may be possible, but I personally doubt it.
The problem with the Platypus (or Ornithorhynchus - platypus is actually a beetle) and the Echidnas, which form the monotremes, is that they don't have teeth. Teeth are a good way of tracing lineages, as they tend to fossilize well.
We class them as mammals, but they have several characteristics which are far more reptilian. They lay eggs, and have a much lower body temperature. They do not even appear to be closely related to marsupials.
We will probably never know which reptiles ( almost certainly some kind of therapod ) actually gave rise to them.
You know what? They don't give a damn. They just carry on eating, sleeping and making baby platypusses (platypii?)
2006-09-01 10:12:04 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
No.
Did you get to level 5 by asking this type of things?
-------------------
OK, here I am again. I concur with Don's answer, but I wanted to add some specific data.
There are fossil relatives of the modern platypus, including Obdurodon dicksonii, and Monotrematum sudamericanum.
http://app.pan.pl/acta47/app47-487.pdf
There are also many fossil mammals that are absolutely different from any of the extant forms we know, and lots of materials that still await classification. Paleontology is a fascinating field.
The fact that any living species "looks similar" to others is not by itself an indication of common ancestry. I suggest you investigate the differences between analogy and homology in an evolutionary sense, because the supposed "similarities" that you're invoking in your joke example are not homologies. Homoplasies (similarities due to convergence or parallelism) are not indicators of common ancestry; they may reflect adaptations or constraints, or other aspects of the evolutionary history of a taxon.
Another common misconception is that all the species living today are related by means of "missing links". Evolution does not produce "chains of beings" that progress from one to the other; populations diverge and become what we recognize as new species, and the pattern is similar to the branches of the tree.
Thus, the fossil platypus species may be considered more or less derived, but no scientist will state that one gave origin to another, except when very specific processes and patterns can be verified.
And to answer your other question, nothing "made them". They arose from the interplay between many factors, and thanks to some inherent characteristics of life: (1) all living forms show variation (variability), (2) at least part of this variation is inheritable, (3) some of these variations confer higher fitness to the organism in the interrelation between it and its environment.
Biological systems are complex systems, and the emergent characteristics of complex systems (you'll have to look those up, because it amounts to another answer) are related to phenomena such as autoorganization and stability. No need for a "higher power".
More about ornithorhynchid phylogenetic relationships in this scientific article:
http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/(yprocpnioyvgoya5um5g0pm4)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,2,14;journal,103,126;linkingpublicationresults,1:102022,1
(if you're interested and cannot download the full version, let me know).
Silverbirch, juvenile platypus _do_ have teeth, as well as fossil species (such as Obdurodon) did, so that is not a particular problem for their study. Also, all mammals are reptiles from a cladistic viewpoint ;-) I hope you meant therapsid, and not theropod.
2006-09-01 06:36:50 · answer #5 · answered by Calimecita 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
When scientists say common ancestor they refer to microorganisms...it's from these that all life spawned. Ever hear of primordial ooze? That's the basic concept, from that all life sprang and started to adapt into different species via natural selection.
2006-09-01 07:26:04 · answer #6 · answered by Shaun 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, I bet (sarchastic)
2006-09-01 06:27:17 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋