I have been going through photos taken during a recent trip to Mozambique, and every now and then I am struck by the similarity of some of the African organisms to their counterparts on other continents. One of the best such examples is that of Neotropical glass frogs (Centrolenidae) and some African reed frogs (Hyperoliidae). Their resemblance to each other is uncanny – the two animals display a virtually identical, nearly translucent body, and only the shape of their toe pads reveals which is which. And yet these two lineages of frogs are separated by at least 150 million years of evolution, with many forms that look nothing like them in between, but ended up evolving the same, homologous morphology.*) These two groups differ quite significantly in their biology, however. The South and Central American glass frogs are forest animals, spending most of their life in the trees, often high in the rainforest canopy. They lay their eggs on the underside of leaves that hang over fast flowing streams. Males of these frogs often guard multiple egg clutches, until hatching tadpoles are washed off by rain into the stream below. The African “glass frogs”, members of the Hyperolius nasutus species complex and a few others, have a very different lifestyle, and are found in open, grassy areas of the southern part of the continent. They lay eggs underwater in big clumps attached to submerged plant stems, and exhibit no parental care.
Seems to me that parallel evolution is another argument against the existence of a magical intelligent designer – if the designer is intelligent enough to invent loa loa and the HIV virus, why are so many of its designs so incredibly repetitive? (I say “its” because if this omnipotence exists, I cannot imagine that it sports a set of male, or any other, genitalia.) If I could create anything I would at least give some frogs laser eyes. Or make tiny dragons with wings. Oh, wait.
*) Parallel evolution is different from convergent evolution in that in the former similar structures evolve independently but use homologous elements e.g., pterodactyl and bat wings, whereas in the latter similar solutions are developed by using unrelated, non-homologous elements e.g., shells of ostracod crustaceans and clams.
3 Comments Add yours
Reblogged this on Mark Solock Blog.
Thanks for the comments on ID, as well as a lovely essay on frogs.
Seems to me only people not very well acquainted with the designs of nature could seriously entertain the thought that they are intelligently created.
Interesting, very well written and I do appreciate the link to the time scale – many thanks. I look forward to reading more!
Science Teacher, Oakland NJ Schools