4 ms·
> survived unimaginable changes and upheavals, such as the mass extinction that killed the dinosaurs and marine reptiles like plesiosaurs that it swam alongside
by DubiousPusher 5y ago
> survived unimaginable changes and upheavals, such as the mass extinction that killed the dinosaurs and marine reptiles like plesiosaurs that it swam alongside.
It's generally my understanding that extant species have all continued evolving and while a creature may have strong morphological resemblance to its ancestor it is not the same species. Therefore, to say this creature "survived" the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event would be to say all extant species survived it. Am I misunderstanding this?
- rolph 5y agothere is a framing and context that comes from massive consumption of biological science. when you hear statements like this, the thing that survives is the overall anatomical structure and adaptations indistinguishable from fossil remains except by the fact that fossilization has occured youare asking a legitimate question, and trying to clear up your own self recognized misunderstanding, sorry to see your comment going gray like that
- rob74 5y agoSee also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_fossil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_fossil
- rolph 5y ago>>The minimal superficial changes to living fossils are mistakenly declared the absence of evolution, but they are examples of stabilizing selection, which is an evolutionary process—and perhaps the dominant process of morphological evolution.[4]<< if you want to talk about genetic modifications that is sequitorial however the framing of the statement involves anatomical structure, thus the confusions that have arisen over time.