Re: Rupture aortic aneurysm


"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:42646610.649DA8F3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(...)

>> See above. Fastness and intelligence have their price.
>
> According to the theory of evolution, survival is worth any cost.

Actually, it isn't. Ever here of altruism?

>> Btw, different animals have different stategies of survival. Some are
>> fast to run away from their enemies, some hide from their enemies, some
>> don't taste good. The best stategy depends on what the animal is already
>> able to do (evolution is unlikely to massively transform animals if a
>> small change in a different direction will do as well) and the habitat
>> of the animal. For example it is easier to hide in the jungle than in
>> the savannah. So sloths can survive in the jungle by hiding from their
>> enemies while antelopes in the savannah have to run away from them.
>
> Speed is advantageous in either environment. So is intelligence.

Really? How is intellegence of value to a slug which cannot move fast? Is
there any value to know that you about to get killed? Or for a coral, which
just sits there during its entire life?

I would agree speed and intellegence is valuable without cost. However, the
metabolic cost of increased speed and brain power is not worth it.

>> >>>>>(2) Sloths
>> >>>>>
>> >>
>> >>1: They don't hunt.
>> >>
>> >>2: They probably don't have many enemies that are able to follow them
>> >>in
>> >>the height of the trees.
>> >
>> >
>> > They are sometimes also on the ground.
>>
>> That's why they shouldn't draw unnecessary attention to themselves by
>> undue speed.
>
> The faster sloth will still have a survival advantage over the slower
> one.

Not necessarily. I mean, sloths survived in their slow way for millions of
years. It seems that sloths are a successful animal in evolutionary terms.

> Reminds me of the following joke:
>
> Two men watched in horror as lion emerged from the forest licking his
> lips. One of the men bent down to double-lace his running shoes. The
> other man comments, "that's not going to help you out-run the lion."
> The man wearing the running shoes replies, "I only need to out-run you."
>
>> >
>> >>3: The slowness of their movements serves as camouflage, so such
>> >>enemies
>> >>as might hunt them don't see them too often.
>> >
>> >
>> > You are thinking of the chameleon. The sloth's slow movements is not
>> > camouflage. Having speed would still confer a survival advantage.
>> > Why has there not been selection for this speed ?
>>
>> I'm not thinking of the chameleon, but camouflage is probably not the
>> right word for what I meant. What I mean is that the slow speed helps
>> the sloths to hide themselves. If they were a bit faster they would
>> still be slower then their enemies but draw more attention to
>> themselves. So there is probably a strong selection _against_ them
>> getting any faster.
>
> In truth, there is not ever **natural** selection against speed,
> strength, or intelligence. See joke above.

Actually, there is. Imagine you made an earthworm as smart as a human. The
earthworm won't be able to go through the ground.

And how do you think extra brain power or muscle would help a tape worm? I
mean, those things live in your guts and don't do anything.

>> >>>>>(3) Manatees
>> >>
>> >>1: They don't hunt.
>> >>
>> >>2: They probably don't have many enemies due to their habitat and size,
>> >>except mankind, of course.
>> >
>> >
>> > Speed would still confer a survival advantage. Why has there not been
>> > selected for this?
>>
>> Like what survival advantage? How would this help the manatees?
>
> It would help them escape predators like sharks. They would also be
> better able to get out of the way of boat propellers.


>> >>3: Why do you think that manatees (and sloths) are stupid? They might
>> >>be
>> >>more intelligent than you think. Of course not as intelligent as
>> >>chimpanzees or dolphins, but then again, there is no need for them to
>> >>be
>> >>so intelligent.
>> >
>> >
>> > Intelligence would still confer a survival advantage. Why has there
>> > not
>> > been selection for this?
>>
>> Because a large brain is expensive. Usually animals are particularly
>> intelligent if they are either carnivores or have a complicated social
>> life like many primates. For a manatee being as intelligent as a dolphin
>> would be a waist of resources.
>
> It would not be a waste if it improves fitness for survival.

Yet, if the extra metabolic costs are unsustainable, then more intelligence
would decrease fitness for survival.
(...)

> If left to natural selection (aka survival of the fittest), we should
> see less species diversity as the fittest species destroy the slower and
> less intelligent species in their competition for finite resources.

That might be true if there were one static environment. The environment
varies from year to year due changes in annual rainfall, temperature and
other variables. And the environment changes as one moves into the center
of a forest, lower down in the ocean, or higher up a mountain. There is a
great deal of environment diversity that leads to a great deal of species
diversity.

> Instead, the earth is rich with species diversity despite countless
> extinctions as a consequence of man and the industrial revolution.
>
> This species diversity is not well explained by the theory of
> evolution. The intervention by an intelligent force can create species
> diversity just as man has created tremendous diversity in dogs.

Actually, besides the great environmental diversity, there are additional
explanations for species diversity. Evolutionary reasons include the fact
that once a species diverges into two species (like what happens when a
river seperates two groups of animals), there are permanently different
species. And species migrate and form new species (like Darwin's finches).

(...) <-- Indicates text has been deleted. Part of being intellectually
honest.

Jeff


.

Relevant Pages

  • POTM: Re: Commentary: Thoughts on atheistic evolution and morality
    ... Macroevolution refers to one species changing into a completely ... but not "completely different," what sort of evolution would that be? ... If we humans are animals like any other - only more evolved - there ...
    (talk.origins)
  • TOBS: Mathematical Probability
    ... Mathematical Probability. ... The evolution of species violates the rule of mathematical ... and countless microscopic animals; also, the palm, lily, melon, maize, ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Speciation and biodiversity, a neutral theory
    ... Global patterns of speciation and diversity ... that species diversity arises without specific physical barriers. ... mutation without explicit consideration of the evolution of the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Speciation and biodiversity, a neutral theory
    ... Global patterns of speciation and diversity ... that species diversity arises without specific physical barriers. ... mutation without explicit consideration of the evolution of the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Commentary: Thoughts on atheistic evolution and morality
    ... Macroevolution refers to one species changing into a completely ... All creationists believe in genetic variation within a species because ... to do is discuss the moral implications of atheistic evolution. ... If we humans are animals like any other - only more evolved - there is ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading