>>11955924Stupid how? The way the ostrich walks is essentially inverted compared to ours. Both probably work well, but it's unlikely it would switch from one to the other ever, because the intermediate forms are likely to be inferior. So you are likely to get stuck with the one you originally evolved with. And just why? Why would everyone die out, then evolve virtually identical forms in a fraction of the time it took to evolve the original forms? There just seems to be near perfect continuity befor and after the gap - still the bushbabies living today seem to be near exactly between theropods and modern apes in structure. Also the nipples are at different places, in the front, rather than along the belly or in the back.
As I mentioned later there is also a rather striking similarity between some iguanodons with ungulates (compare with a camel skeleton) and afrotheria. See the teeth are different, with incisors and molars being completely separate, rather than parts of one set which can already be seen in some iguanodons.
Why would you abandon the principle when it doesn't suit your narrative? Why is it a problem for you anyway, it would still mean things evolved, or is it because you do hate the idea of descending from some t-rex like creature? Or what?
