Re: Rupture aortic aneurysm

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD schrieb: 
Thorsten Schier wrote:

<snip>

Not so. I said thay don't have many predators and I stay with that
statement. Of course we could discuss wether we would like to call a
certain number of predators "many".


You seem to be backpedalling here.

Quite the contrary. I stay with what I said. Slugs have a lot less enemies than would be expected regarding their slowness. So the bad taste is quite effective as a means of protection.

By the way, when threatend, slugs contract, partly in order to make it harder for an enemy to swallow them and partly to protect their delicate parts, there eyes and there tentacles. A slug can't do both: contract and run away from an enemy. They don't even try to run away. So a little more speed would be of no advantage.


Btw., bees are a lot faster than slugs. They can even fly and they have
a sting to defend themselves.

And yet, they have a number of predators. For example the bee-eater, the
bee wolf and the bee beetle. And this are only those who specialise in
eating bees. Other animals like hornets are also known to eat bees.

So you see, there is no evidence that slugs would be any better of, if
they were a bit faster.


You are going to have to make up your mind whether you believe the
theory of evolution explains why there are traits like speed and
stingers.

Of course speed and stings can be an advantage if they fit into the animals strategy of survival.

But even the great speed of the bee is no perfect protection against predators. So if you can name animals that hunt slugs that is no proof against the effectiveness of their bad taste.


so
there is no theory to be invalidated by these counterexamples.


...except for the theory of evolution.


Hardly.


Then why are you objecting?

Could you frame this answer in the context of the discussion? I'm not sure what is your point here.


As you have nothing to say to rest of my post, I assume that you agree
with what I wrote.



You assume incorrectly.


Then you should have objected to what I wrote.


There is no need to object when you've not made your case. 

Closed eyes? Selective perception? Still in denial?

Regards,

Thorsten
.