rabbits to cats or vice-versa?

[Alkarin]

Ive always wondered if cats evolved into rabbits or vice versa. To me they seem to have alot of similar body structures(hind legs)and phenotypes and i always kind of thought one evolved from the other. but whenever i say this to someone they simply reply with 'thats ing stupid' so i was just wondering what you guys think. Im not saying they are as a fact just it seems possible that they split on the evolutionary tree and made 2 seperate species.

[Chaigidel]

cats evolved from carnivorae-- the first in that line is dogs--- bears cats and dogs all have common ancestor.

rabbits are rodentia I think--- common ancestor with squirrels, rats, nutria( i stand corrected lagomorphs are rabbits ; rodents are a different order )

[Alkarin]

yes i just find it odd how similar they are. but then again maybe all our work is wrong? we dont know.

[Viking Prince]

To the degree that all life is related there should be similarities to be found.

Of interest:

HHMI News: Bringing to Life the Genome of an Ancient Mammal
Dec 1, 2004 ... By comparing DNA sequences of 19 species of existing mammals, ... Knowing about the genome of the common ancestor of placental mammals ...

[Simetrical]

No currently-existing species "evolved into" any other currently-existing species. Earlier species evolve into later species, current species don't somehow evolve sideways into other current species.

Cats and rabbits do, of course, share an ancestor at some point, as do all living things (as far as we know). Cats are carnivores, and rabbits are lagomorphs, as Chaigidel said. So they're probably not too much more closely related to each other than they are to, say, humans.

[Copperknickers II]

No currently-existing species "evolved into" any other currently-existing species.

That's not entirely true. Species don't just evolve into something else and subsequently die out, they branch out. In many cases, some of those branches stay almost exactly the same as their forebears. Undoubtedly, many land animals evolved from ceolcanth type fish, but we still have caelocanths.

[Phier]

That's not entirely true. Species don't just evolve into something else and subsequently die out, they branch out. In many cases, some of those branches stay almost exactly the same as their forebears. Undoubtedly, many land animals evolved from ceolcanth type fish, but we still have caelocanths.

Interestingly the caelocanths have evolved faster than a lot of fish, they just maintained their morphology. Genetically they still evolved.

[Helm]

Well they will have shared a common mammalian ancestor way back, along with pretty much everything else.

[Phier]

Ive always wondered if cats evolved into rabbits or vice versa. To me they seem to have alot of similar body structures(hind legs)and phenotypes and i always kind of thought one evolved from the other. but whenever i say this to someone they simply reply with 'thats ing stupid' so i was just wondering what you guys think. Im not saying they are as a fact just it seems possible that they split on the evolutionary tree and made 2 seperate species.

Evolution aside, I'm failing to see a real phenotypic resemblance.

[Chaigidel]

maybe rear leg shape? elongated foot?

there arent many tho

[Alkarin]

maybe rear leg shape? elongated foot?

there arent many tho

yes basically shaping of the body etc. it just appears the rabbits features are more extreme then a cats. I personally would like to think one evolved from the other but since i have no evidence of it im basically talking out of my rear end. just something to think about really.

[Chaigidel]

there is alot of stuff written about the process that animals likely went through to reach current states, in some we even have transitory fossils ( like with birds, and seals)

[Nikos]

No, rabbits hares and pikas are part of the order Lagomorpha. Cats are part of the order Carnivora, in the family Felidae.

[Alkarin]

No, rabbits hares and pikas are part of the order Lagomorpha. Cats are part of the order Carnivora, in the family Felidae.

but do we have proof of them evolving through those classification trees? just because they are not in the same kingdom or what have you does not mean evolution can not eventually put them there?

[Nikos]

but do we have proof of them evolving through those classification trees? just because they are not in the same kingdom or what have you does not mean evolution can not eventually put them there?

No, evolution cannot put them into Felidae or more importantly carnivora. Lagomorphs evolved specific adaptations for eating plants and other things. The morphology of a Lagomorph isn't even remotely similar to that of a Felid. Look,

Here is a picture of a rabbit skull. Notice that the teeth have become fused in the front and continue to grow for the Lagomorph's entire life. This skull was made for eating plant matter.

Now look at the skull of a domestic cat. The first thing to look at is that the cat has binocular or stereoscopic vision. This means the eyes face forward like in human beings and other predators. The lagomorph's skull is NOT stereoscopic. It's eyes face to the sides to scan for predators. Again, look at the teeth and the muscle jaw muscle attachments in the felid's skull. Any similarity between felids and Lagomorphs is simply coincidential, the result of convergent evolution.

[Phier]

but do we have proof of them evolving through those classification trees? just because they are not in the same kingdom or what have you does not mean evolution can not eventually put them there?

By definition no.

What you are talking about is convergent evolution. The idea is that animals with the same ecological niches can evolve independently to resemble each other. Dolphins and sharks, and the now extinct Tasmanian tiger and canines, are the two more dramatic examples.

Even if cans and rabbits looked alike and ate alike and lived alike, they wouldn't jump kingdoms, as the resemblances would be superficial, the genetics would not be shared.

While it is possible that two very distinct species could genetically evolve identically to be the 'same' the odds of it are so small that its for all real purposes its impossible.

The convergence here is that cats and rabbits jump, but thats about it.

[Copperknickers II]

Of course, but we are talking about the physical.

[Simetrical]

That's not entirely true. Species don't just evolve into something else and subsequently die out, they branch out. In many cases, some of those branches stay almost exactly the same as their forebears. Undoubtedly, many land animals evolved from ceolcanth type fish, but we still have caelocanths.

No, we have a similar species that's descended from them. Ancient coelacanths probably would not be able to interbreed with modern ones. (As far as I know.) Of course, the distinction between species is pretty arbitrary anyway, so to some extent you could argue this both ways.

Of course, but we are talking about the physical.

We're talking about the definition of species, which has little to do with phenotype. Chihuahuas are radically different from wolves morphologically, but they're considered the same species anyway (C. lupus). Conversely, two quite similar organisms might be considered different species if they live in different places or for other reasons.

My statement was kind of vague, but it's generally a good point anyway. The apes we evolved from, for instance, are not the same as the apes that exist today. Modern-day apes are no more truly descendants of our last common ancestor than we are. In most cases there are identifiable differences between ancient species and their modern descendants.