FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-20-2002, 02:47 PM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: California
Posts: 6,196
Post Has there been anything about evolution that sounded like bunk?

It is certainly true that most of us here find evolution to be a ultimately enlightening theory about our biological development, and we consider it true without doubt.

However, has there ever been something declared in evolution that didn't make sense to you?

For example, I read in a biology textbook once that snakes are legless because they lost their legs in evolution. But isn't the point of evolution to become better adapted to the environment? Eliminating legs sounded fairly dumb for the progress of evolution on a species.

Of course, this was before I was officially educated on evolution.
Secular Elation is offline  
Old 07-20-2002, 03:17 PM   #2
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA
Posts: 2,115
Post

Quote:
For example, I read in a biology textbook once that snakes are legless because they lost their legs in evolution. But isn't the point of evolution to become better adapted to the environment? Eliminating legs sounded fairly dumb for the progress of evolution on a species.
Snakes a able to move through unconsolidated material much better without legs. That is "to become better adapted to the environment."

Most snakes do retain bone elements associated with legs.
Dr.GH is offline  
Old 07-20-2002, 04:05 PM   #3
KC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: San Narcisco, RRR
Posts: 527
Post

Evolution has a 'point'?

Cheers,

KC
KC is offline  
Old 07-22-2002, 03:19 AM   #4
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Middlesbrough, England
Posts: 3,909
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Secular Elation:
<strong>Has there been anything about evolution that sounded like bunk.</strong>
Well I can only think of clunk, funk, and dunk, and none of those are about evolution so maybe you are on to something. Keep up the good work.

Boro Nut

Oh, and chunk!
Boro Nut is offline  
Old 07-22-2002, 03:44 AM   #5
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino
Posts: 12,591
Talking

Quote:
Originally posted by Boro Nut:
<strong>

Well I can only think of clunk, funk, and dunk, and none of those are about evolution so maybe you are on to something. Keep up the good work.

Boro Nut

Oh, and chunk!</strong>
Boro's just flunked.

Oolon
Oolon Colluphid is offline  
Old 07-22-2002, 04:23 AM   #6
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino
Posts: 12,591
Post

Snakes aren’t the only legless group*. There’s a variety of nearly-legless lizards, such as flapfooted lizards, and another group, the amphisbaenians, have also lost their legs completely.

(* Before Boro says it, many groups have become legless. Snakes are unusual in that they don’t often trash hotel roms though.)

Interestingly, amphisbaenians have also, like snakes, lost one lung (the better to be long-and-thin), but it is the opposite one to snakes (ie snakes have kept the left lung, amphisbaenians have kept the right -- maybe it’s the other way round, can’t remember which is which, but you get the point). Another oddity of ‘design’, or a lack of consistency on the part of the designer! Similarly, birds and mammals have only one aortic arch, but it’s not the same one.

As to why legless is good... think what shape snakes are, and what that shape is an endocast of. Legs are bony structures that need room to move in order to work. Imagine trying to crawl on all fours through a narrow tunnel. If the tunnel is too narrow, you won’t be able to crawl, you’ll do better wriggling on your belly.

It’s all very well running down your prey... till it runs down its burrow. If your shorter legs mean you can wriggle down after it, then you’ve got an edge for natural selection to work on. If you make your main living by going after prey like that, your legs may become a hindrance; after all, the same wriggle that propels you down a burrow would work above ground too. So the advantage of running may be outweighed by the disadvantage of not being able to squeeze down a burrow.

Ref other evolutionary bunk, the only thing I can think of is not regarded as correct these days anyway. It’s Man the Mighty Hunter. Man becomes hunter, with tools, team-work, and upright stance to throw stuff. Catches game. Problem: Man sharpens stick. Goes after fleet-of-foot prey, a herd of zebra, for instance. Throws stick. Misses. Starves. (More likely scenario: Man, or rather, Men, throw lots of stones (carried with them in freed-up hands) at lions to drive them off a kill.)

My proto-snake-down-a-warren may be bunk too.

TTFN, Oolon
Oolon Colluphid is offline  
Old 07-22-2002, 04:31 AM   #7
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer
Posts: 5,276
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by KCdgw:
<strong>Evolution has a 'point'?

Cheers,

KC</strong>
Greetings KCdgw,

Is it necessary for evolution to have a point? Is it necessary for any scientific endevour to have a point. Does Quantum Mechanics have a point? Science doesn't concern itself with such things. If it is useful and works, then that is what is used. You don't have to believe in thermodynamics to use a car, as long as you don't have to make one.

My primary interest in science is that if you want to get the best available understanding of what is going on in the natural universe, it is the only game in town. There is nothing else that comes close.

Starboy

[ July 22, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>
Starboy is offline  
Old 07-22-2002, 03:39 PM   #8
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: St. John's, Nfld. Canada
Posts: 1,652
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Secular Elation:
<strong>It is certainly true that most of us here find evolution to be a ultimately enlightening theory about our biological development, and we consider it true without doubt.

However, has there ever been something declared in evolution that didn't make sense to you?
</strong>
<a href="http://www.drdino.com" target="_blank">this</a>
tgamble is offline  
Old 07-23-2002, 06:54 AM   #9
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: the dark side of Mars
Posts: 1,309
Post

The Platypus is hard to explain.
Radcliffe Emerson is offline  
Old 07-23-2002, 08:45 AM   #10
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Middlesbrough, England
Posts: 3,909
Post

I agree. I spent hours trying once. Mind you, she was thick, even for an Australian.

Boro Nut
Boro Nut is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:35 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.