Crocodiles, why arn't they smart?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
They've been around for at least 250 million years. Why haven't they evolved intellect? Why has their evolution been for all intents and purposes stagnant for the the last 65 million years?

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]


Yeah.

And what about wings? Why haven't they evolved wings? Or fire-breathing? What about fire-breathing? Also they don't really look human. Why haven't they evolved into humans? None of this makes any sense. They have nothing to show for after 65 million years.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course. The point is, its suited ENOUGH to its environment that any drastic change is practically guaranteed to be a negative one. Imagine a microscope. You look in, and you can pretty much see what it is you are looking for. Cranking the focus knob in either direction is pretty much guaranteed to make the picture worse, even if you aren't perfectly focused to begin with. So, no drastic changes for species that are already in focus.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that the same as saying the evolutionary path for crocs has simply dead ended?

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, look at bacteria. They are so well-adapted that they've been around for billions of years, and they haven't grown brains or wings or ovaries or anything.


[/ QUOTE ]

Only if you take a myopic view. Could not a human be described as a bacteria that has evolved brains?

Stu

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]


Isn't that the same as saying the evolutionary path for crocs has simply dead ended?



[/ QUOTE ]

The term "dead end" carries negative connotations, same with stagnating. It's a quibble, but I don't think those value judgments fit well when talking about evolution. Why not say, "optimally adapted to the present environment"? If the environment changes, they'll start changing again as well.

By dispensing with these terms, we get away from the conceit that in evolutionary terms, intelligence = superiority.

We like being smart, but outside the confines of our skulls, the genes don't care.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course. The point is, its suited ENOUGH to its environment that any drastic change is practically guaranteed to be a negative one. Imagine a microscope. You look in, and you can pretty much see what it is you are looking for. Cranking the focus knob in either direction is pretty much guaranteed to make the picture worse, even if you aren't perfectly focused to begin with. So, no drastic changes for species that are already in focus.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that the same as saying the evolutionary path for crocs has simply dead ended?

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Sort of, except they are still alive. There is still plenty of potential for change if pressures change in the future. I think dead-end is a bit misleading, but if you define it for me, I might agree to it.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Again, look at bacteria. They are so well-adapted that they've been around for billions of years, and they haven't grown brains or wings or ovaries or anything.


[/ QUOTE ]

Only if you take a myopic view. Could not a human be described as a bacteria that has evolved brains?

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Could not a human be described as a crocodile that evolved brains?

Sort of, but not really. Bacteria are still around. Our most recent common ancestor with h. pylori was probably a bacteria, but its a bacteria that is currently extinct. We are not h. pylori with brains.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Isn't that the same as saying the evolutionary path for crocs has simply dead ended?



[/ QUOTE ]

The term "dead end" carries negative connotations, same with stagnating. It's a quibble, but I don't think those value judgments fit well when talking about evolution. Why not say, "optimally adapted to the present environment"? If the environment changes, they'll start changing again as well.

By dispensing with these terms, we get away from the conceit that in evolutionary terms, intelligence = superiority.

We like being smart, but outside the confines of our skulls, the genes don't care.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent post. Dead end isn't horribly wrong, but it isn't exactly correct, either. 'Finish line' is just as close, and perhaps even more accurate. It just isn't as satisfying to those whose intuition compels them to look down on the crocodile.