If the fish evolved a reduced pelvis then it must have had some survival benefit, but then if a reduced pelvis has a survival benefit why were they replaced by a type of stickleback WITH a pelvis?
My only idea so far is that the pelvis'd stickleback had some of benefit over the non-pelvis'd fish and then gained the additional benefit of reduced pelvis.
If the fish evolved a reduced pelvis then it must have had some survival benefit, but then if a reduced pelvis has a survival benefit why were they replaced by a type of stickleback WITH a pelvis?
My only idea so far is that the pelvis'd stickleback had some of benefit over the non-pelvis'd fish and then gained the additional benefit of reduced pelvis.
Anybody have an idea or reasoning?
Thanks.
dlandon2000 2 years ago
nothing like free information, thanks.
AceoIogy 3 years ago 2
You can say that again.
omegavalerius 3 years ago 2
Great!
InfidelisMax 3 years ago 2