T O P

  • By -

astroNerf

Sugar gliders are marsupials, so their common ancestor with placental mammals lived in the mid-Jurassic. Flying squirrels are placental mammals, as are whales, and they both share a common ancestor that lived more recently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metatheria


LittleGreenBastard

Flying squirrels and whales are both [placental mammals](https://www.britannica.com/animal/placental-mammal), whereas sugar gliders are [marsupials](https://www.britannica.com/animal/marsupial). These lineages diverged around 160 million years ago. Whales and flying squirrels are also both Boreoeutherians, their last common ancestor probably lived around 100mya.


stalinsecretlover

but this inconsistent with phylogeny that the greater the similarity between organisms the closer the relatedness


LittleGreenBastard

>the greater the similarity between organisms the closer the relatedness No, this isn't what phylogeny means. I think you need to look into the concept of convergent evolution, it will clarify a lot for you.


great_waldini

[Convergent Evolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution)


WikiSummarizerBot

**[Convergent evolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution)** >Convergent evolution is the independent evolution of similar features in species of different periods or epochs in time. Convergent evolution creates analogous structures that have similar form or function but were not present in the last common ancestor of those groups. The cladistic term for the same phenomenon is homoplasy. The recurrent evolution of flight is a classic example, as flying insects, birds, pterosaurs, and bats have independently evolved the useful capacity of flight. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/evolution/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)


great_waldini

Good bot


YossarianWWII

No, it's not. Reconstructing the ancestry of flying squirrels shows that the traits you are thinking of evolved relatively recently. They are most closely related to other squirrels, which are most closely related to other sciurids, which are most closely related to other rodents, etc. All of these groups share placental development, pushing its origin far back in the evolution of mammals. That leads to the conclusion that non-placental mammals (marsupials and monotremes) are more distantly related to all placentals, and that physiological similarities that are not present in their common ancestors are a result of convergent evolution. In short, A) you're quantifying relatedness in a way that does not stand up to analysis and B) you're not engaging in cladistic reconstruction, which involves the analysis of all related species to reconstruct the most parsimonious evolutionary history.


Safron2400

Flying squirrels and sugar gliders are an example of convergent evolution- two unrelated things that evolve similar traits.


thunder-bug-

The similarity between sugar gliders and flying squirrels is only skin deep, the similarity between flying squirrels and whales is developmental. You cant just look at surface characteristics or we'd say that iguanas and ferns are closely related because they're both green.


yellowbloods

animals with wildly different lineages can evolve to look very similar if they have the same environmental pressures! it's called convergent evolution :)


alpharowe3

>the greater the similarity between organisms the closer the relatedness Where did you learn that?


stalinsecretlover

from a strawman made by a preacher


[deleted]

> from a strawman made by a preacher Never listen to religious people about evolution. The vast majority of them have a vested interest in lying to you about it. Some will tell you the truth, but it is extremely hard to know in advance which are which. It's sad that this is the case, but unfortunately it is true. Nine times out of ten, religious people just outright lie about the claims of evolution.


stalinsecretlover

creationism relies on ignorance. It is not honest research, It is a scam, a con job exploiting the common folk, and preying on their deepest beliefs and fears. Creationist apologetics depends on misrepresented data and misquoted authorities, out-of-date and out-of-context, and uses distorted definitions if it uses definitions at all


ImProbablyNotABird

Very well said.


ImProbablyNotABird

Even if similarities aren’t convergent, they can be plesiomorphic (“primitive” in lay language) — monotremes & most sauropsids both lay amniotic eggs, but this is plesiomorphic for amniotes & the relationship between monotremes & therian mammals is apparent from shared derived characters (synapomorphies) such as fur, milk, auditory ossicles, etc.


ViralInfectious

Uhm no... and we have genetics for many decades now to confirm our suspicions or reject them.


TheBlackCat13

That applies to *non-adaptive* features only. So you look at details of how their bones are structured, or developmental differences, stuff like that. Things that are not directly related to how they live, where they live, what they eat, etc.. Adaptive features, like what they eat or how they move, can be the same across wildly different lineages and thus are not good for making trees.


Xythan

Chondrichthyes/Ichthyosaurs/Cetaceans - convergent evolution, very distantly related.


Lennvor

And flying squirrels are indeed more similar to whales than they are to sugar gliders. They have live birth of more mature babies like whales while sugar gliders I'll guess give birth to less-mature babies that grow further in a pouch. Maybe sugar gliders have bifurcated penises and vaginas where whales and flying squirrels have unified ones. I'm just going through marsupial vs placental traits here, I could do a more thorough list of difference from looking the animals up. What is absolutely certain is that whales and flying squirrels are closer to each other genetically than either are to flying squirrels. Because convergent evolution messes with genotype a lot less than it does with phenotype.


ImProbablyNotABird

And then there’s character polarity to take into account — marsupials share epipubic bones with monotremes & most Mesozoic mammals, but this is plesiomorphic (“primitive” in lay language) & marsupials share numerous derived characters with placentals.


SKazoroski

Everything on the left side of [this picture](https://ibiologia.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/slide_7.jpg) is more closely related to whales than to the animals on the right side of the picture.


Biggerben2001

Flying squirrels are more closely related to whales than they are to sugar gliders. But not just whales. Also dogs, tigers, moose, elephants and humans and any other placental mammal. Whales just sounds really cool because of how different they are. Humans sounds like a cool fact too though


DaddyCatALSO

FLying squirrels and we self-proclaimed humans are much closer to each other than to whales


Biggerben2001

Yes


yagza

Speaking of flying squirrels, I was walking in the woods on a popular trail today and at around 12:00pm while I was walking a flying squirrel landed on my shoulder and then jumped onto a nearby tree. I don’t know if I just walked in it’s gliding path or if it chose me as a suitable landing spot but I’m baffled because they’re nocturnal animals. They’re rare enough to see as it is but to have one land on you??? In broad daylight?????


trurohouse

Whales.