Human and pig: why they phisiologically idental?

[molbol2000]

I think no need to talk about what properties make human idental to pig, they well known. How it become possible from the view of point of evolution?

[StringJunky]

Somewhere on the evolutionary tree, we had a common ancestor(s) that carried those common traits and then the respective lineages diverged to what they are today..

Edited December 19, 2020 by StringJunky

[molbol2000]

4 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Somewhere on the evolutionary tree, we had a common ancestor(s) that carried those common traits and then the respective lineages diverged to what they are today..

Something like an ancient mouse?
Perhaps in some ways, humans are even closer than primates. For example, I've heard this about the biochemical composition of muscles and insulin.
Then it doesn't add up

Speaking of primates. The odd thing is that primates do not have negative rhesus

__________________

Is it possible here to allow horizontal gene transfer in cultures with pig crops?

Also primates usually do not accumulate fat as easily as humans and pigs. It seems in this aspect human and pig also the same and they leaders. True, not all people accumulate it easily.

Edited December 19, 2020 by molbol2000

[Bufofrog]

29 minutes ago, molbol2000 said:

Something like an ancient mouse?
Perhaps in some ways, humans are even closer than primates. For example, I've heard this about the biochemical composition of muscles and insulin.
Then it doesn't add up

Speaking of primates. The odd thing is that primates do not have negative rhesus

__________________

Is it possible here to allow horizontal gene transfer in cultures with pig crops?

Also primates usually do not accumulate fat as easily as humans and pigs. It seems in this aspect human and pig also the same and they leaders. True, not all people accumulate it easily.

What in the name of Bob are you talking about??  Is there some point to this?  Some sort of anti-evolution thing maybe?

[molbol2000]

1 minute ago, Bufofrog said:

 Some sort of anti-evolution thing maybe?

There is nothing anti-evolutionary, evolution is not an artist, it creates not beauty and aesthetics, but individuals capable of surviving in the current conditions

And besides, evolution does not have to go in one vector at all. For example, an ant degraded with the complication of society

By the way, the division of labor just along this vector directs human evolution at the present moment.

 

And in the direction opposite to sexual dimorphism, this is also a similar vector

[koti]

25 minutes ago, molbol2000 said:

...evolution is not an artist, it creates not beauty and aesthetics...

In some cases, I agree wholeheartedly.