Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ojuice5001 · 07-02-2003, 05:44 PM

There's a saying that "If something is worth doing, it's worth doing well." Doesn't evolution disprove this? For instance, it's worth it for humans and apes to have a sense of smell, but not to be good at it. On the other hand, it's worth it for an armadillo to be able to see, but not very well. If that saying were true, wouldn't all complex animals be good at vision, hearing, and olfaction?

And how about seals, other than sea lions? They've evolved to be able to move on land, but not very well. Even sea lions, which fill the same ecological niche, are much better at moving on land than other seals.

I've always disagreed with this saying, and it seems that evolutionary biology is on my side.

Doubting Didymus · 07-02-2003, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ojuice5001
I've always disagreed with this saying, and it seems that evolutionary biology is on my side.

Almost all proverbs are stupid, simplistic, or wrong. In the case of evolution, no conscious agent is actually "doing" anything, so I'm not sure you can say that evolution 'disproves' the saying, as its not aware if what it's "done" is done well or not. There are plenty of human examples that show that some things are worth doing only a halfarsed job at, though.

lpetrich · 07-02-2003, 07:47 PM

In the world of human design, one sees such terms as

overengineered
overdesigned
gold-plated

that imply that some design is excessively fancy for its purpose, with the implication that its designers had wasted lots of time and effort in coming up with it.

And the evolution of life follows the principle of avoiding overdesigning. Eagle-quality eyes would not be very useful for cave fish, which live in perpetual darkness -- and which are often blind. And a high-quality sense of smell is not as necessary for an eagle, which flies high above its prey, as it is for a cave fish.

NZAmoeba · 07-02-2003, 07:58 PM

Plus theres the whole issue of 'need'

I'm not aware of armadillo's have many predators, and even then, they have a natural defence (their armour plating) which will work regardless of whether they see the predator from a distance or not.

Plus, seals have no land predators (at least in my hemisphere, i think in the north pole walrus just make use of those giant tusks against polar bears) But they have to swim damn fast to escape those killer whales.

If you don't need it, why bother... (untill the enviroment goes and changes again, then those unecessary changes become very usefull)

07-02-2003, 05:44 PM	#1
Ojuice5001 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: A city in Florida that I love Posts: 3,416	An old saying There's a saying that "If something is worth doing, it's worth doing well." Doesn't evolution disprove this? For instance, it's worth it for humans and apes to have a sense of smell, but not to be good at it. On the other hand, it's worth it for an armadillo to be able to see, but not very well. If that saying were true, wouldn't all complex animals be good at vision, hearing, and olfaction? And how about seals, other than sea lions? They've evolved to be able to move on land, but not very well. Even sea lions, which fill the same ecological niche, are much better at moving on land than other seals. I've always disagreed with this saying, and it seems that evolutionary biology is on my side.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-02-2003, 07:47 PM	#3
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	In the world of human design, one sees such terms as overengineered overdesigned gold-plated that imply that some design is excessively fancy for its purpose, with the implication that its designers had wasted lots of time and effort in coming up with it. And the evolution of life follows the principle of avoiding overdesigning. Eagle-quality eyes would not be very useful for cave fish, which live in perpetual darkness -- and which are often blind. And a high-quality sense of smell is not as necessary for an eagle, which flies high above its prey, as it is for a cave fish.

07-02-2003, 07:58 PM	#4
NZAmoeba Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: New Zealand Posts: 478	Plus theres the whole issue of 'need' I'm not aware of armadillo's have many predators, and even then, they have a natural defence (their armour plating) which will work regardless of whether they see the predator from a distance or not. Plus, seals have no land predators (at least in my hemisphere, i think in the north pole walrus just make use of those giant tusks against polar bears) But they have to swim damn fast to escape those killer whales. If you don't need it, why bother... (untill the enviroment goes and changes again, then those unecessary changes become very usefull)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.