1
$\begingroup$

Okay, Okay so I know my fair share of convergent evolution, foster rule etc. now I'm wondering because I have three creatures (a insect like creature a herbivore and carnivore I'll send images they have arthropod like characteristics but aren't arthropods except the tiny bugs) and they were the only animals on land how would they evolve if I treat them like Earth's mammal ancestor?

That said, the creatures they have evolved from an ancestor that had arthropod-like characteristics, but technically they are not arthropods that were found on earth. Some may have internal bones possible made of cartalege (a idea i had recently)besides the insects.

the continents on my planet split creating multiple environments, snow, desert, swamp and eventually come back together though there may be islands and on each one said creature was there (albeit one or two may not have made it to said island or just went extinct).

Would a huge diversity of creatures inevitably evolve from them or would they not change and stay relatively the same though with some minor differences due to environment?

Basically what I think I'm trying to say is can a species be really diverse like those of earth that evolved from one animal (an ancestor, a rodent I think or those mammal reptiles) but happen three times with creatures of different body structures and not face complications.

enter image description here

enter image description here

enter image description here

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ "they were the only animals on land" - if we are talking about millions of years, of course they would evolve to multiple different species to fill out every ecological niche. $\endgroup$
    – Alexander
    Oct 20, 2021 at 22:35
  • $\begingroup$ i know just would there be complications if there was say 2 diffrent herbivores on a island and evolved yaday basicly competion $\endgroup$ Oct 20, 2021 at 22:37
  • $\begingroup$ im not sayin evolution is without complications of course $\endgroup$ Oct 20, 2021 at 22:37
  • $\begingroup$ Erik, let me know if I changed your intent with this edit. $\endgroup$
    – DWKraus
    Oct 20, 2021 at 23:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ they can evolve a wide range of characteristics but certain fundamental things will get locked in, even though they have been evolving for millions of year the biochemistry of land organisms remains unchanged, arthropods still make chitin, tetrapod's still have bones and lungs, basic things of that nature are very difficult to change. $\endgroup$
    – John
    Oct 21, 2021 at 0:00

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

Given enough time evolution has no constraints beyond niche availability. Insects, mammals, trees and worms all share a common ancestor.

$\endgroup$
7
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I would elaborate on this a bit before I upvote it, but the basic premise is sound. The example I like better is that humans are more closely related to sponges than to insects and octopi. $\endgroup$
    – DWKraus
    Oct 20, 2021 at 23:13
  • $\begingroup$ thanks for the info i didnt know trees shared a common ancestor as the animals you said $\endgroup$ Oct 20, 2021 at 23:15
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ All life on Earth shares an ancestor going back about 3.9 billion years in the pre cambrian, trees and animals are pretty recent in evolutionary terms. Trees have only been around for about 400 million years, animals perhaps 700 million (mostly in the sea). $\endgroup$
    – Kilisi
    Oct 20, 2021 at 23:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ evolution does have some constraints, organisms cannot go back to the drawing board so to speak, developmental pathways get locked in by later adaptation. you will never get unsegmented mammals for instance, or deuterostome insects. $\endgroup$
    – John
    Oct 21, 2021 at 0:03
  • $\begingroup$ @John fair enough, thats not what I meant though. $\endgroup$
    – Kilisi
    Oct 21, 2021 at 2:25

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .