>>51555518>ats and dolphins both independently evolved echolocation because it's a useful tool for finding prey both in the night sky and in ocean depths but bats still look nothing like dolphinsYeah, echolocation was just an example. I could've brought up general traits that other wildly different animals happened to evolve into, like Dolphins and Sharks (so much so that there's a shark literally named after whales). Plus, while Wiglett is undeniably similar to Diglett, it's not like it's the exact same but underwater. It has the elongated eel body, gooey skin, and larger nose, all of which would be adaptations to life underwater. Like I said, it's taking the idea and exaggerating it, it's the basic prompt of a Pokemon with Diglett as a template and running with it to drive the point home.
>It's just far too much of a stretch for Wiglett and Diglett to have convergently evolved all of these same features in almost perfectly identical ways.At the end of the day I'm not gonna say you need to like the design, but I don't really get how it's a "stretch" in a universe as inherently nonsensical as Pokemon. There would be literally no reason for a mole to evolve to look like Diglett in real life to begin with so that can't be used as a metric, so tell me, under what in-universe, Pokemon-specific metric are you saying that it was plausible to happen once, but only once?
>Something like Drillbur is a far better example of what convergent evolution actually looks like.Diglett and Drilbur look absolutely nothing alike, horrible example
