>>51548696>trying to justify itI'm not trying to justify shit, you just imagined that in your head.
I was simply calling your bad argument for what it is.
>I don't fucking know, why you look at the OP again.not an argument
you acknowledge it "can be loose" and that the "loose" example is a textbook case in this same post so I'm not sure what you're trying to get at
>Lots of Pokemon burrow anon, and a lot of them can be used as examples of "convergent evolution"yes, lots of them have large talons for digging for example
consider Diglett doesn't really have a lot of visible features to copy in the first place (it could have hidden appendages)
we can see it has a tubular shape, a large nose, and small eyes -- all things plausible for a subterranean existence which can make sense for Wiglett too, the shape makes sense in an aquatic context too
>but don't all look like each otherirrelevant
we are not privy to every selective pressure in the pokemon world, e.g. why do some digging pokemon with talons end up with armor while others don't?
>isn't that a contradiction!?!? you couldn't call that convergence!!no because it's plausible that share some selective pressures even though they are not in the "same niche"
I think the designers are perfectly within their rights (in terms of lack of explicit exposition) to do something like they did, convergent evolution is a perfectly reasonable biological theme to explore, like the mimicry ones before it
I just don't like the outcome.
>You going "well askshully" doesn't help me in the slightest and only serves to justify it being lazy and shit. I'm not interested in "helping you". It *is* lazy and shit, but you can just say that instead of whining and being wrong about other things.
