Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Friesen on elastics and sauropod necks
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:08:32 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <72@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
> In article <1992Oct13.113238@IASTATE.EDU>, kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
> 
> *> In article <PHS.92Oct11161638@cassiopee.lifia.imag.fr>,
> 
> *>Bigger is better
> *>until you come to some point at which larger equates with disfunction.  In
> *>some cases, that might mean blowing a niche of some sort.  In many other
> *>cases, such as dogs, disfunction due to size means real disfunction, hip
> *>problems etc.
> *
> *  So now, Ted, we have a post in which you say creatures must re-evolve into
> *larger sizes, and one where you say they don't.  Are you going to be up front
> *about it?
> 
> My claim is consistant.  Not ALL creatures would re-evolve;  some would find
> their niches at smaller sizes.  But at least one would.  The advantages are
> huge.  Greater size and strength mean:
> 
> 1.  Better chances in competition for mating rights within species.

   Not necessarily.  Only if mating rituals involve fighting, in
which case the advantage begins to go down once it gets too big
and cumbersome.  

> 2.  Greater abilities to deal with predators/prey from other species.

   Again, only up to a certain point.  After it gets too big it 
can't move very well and becomes a sitting duck.

> 3.  Fewer slings and arrows of outrageous fortune in life generally.

   Such as?  Trouble keeping warm or cool?  Feeding problems to 
maintain such a large body?  While elephants may be able to do 
it a 2000-lb vole might have trouble.

> The fact that NO creature has ever revolved into such sizes in all this
> huge expanse of time which supposedly has passed since sauropods lived tells
> us something.  It can't happen.

   No it doesn't.  All it tells us is that the conditions since then
have not been conducive to their evolution.  These conditions are not
exclusive to gravity and it does not mean that they won't evolve again.
After all, it took over 3 billion years of life before they got that
big; was the "felt effect of gravity" a lot stronger before then?

> And you'll be able to tell your grandchildren you heard it from the source:
> yours truly.

   Ah.  So you're the ultimate authority on paleontology, geology,
biology, biophysics, etc.?

> *> 5.  We've had a number of the t.o regulars claiming that a squat thrust
> *> is somehow a very inefficient way to come up with weight, i.e. that animals
> *> have some magical way of coming up/standing up with is far  more efficient.
> *> They ought to take their insight to the American Olympic weightlifting
> *> team.  Those guys have been looking for more efficient ways to get weight
> *> up for decades, and haven't found one.
> *
> *  Ted, didn't I point out the first time I heard you bring this up that you
> *should really watch some PBS.  Anyone who has seen a nature special on elephants
> *can tell you that elephants get up one leg at a time, never lifting their entire
> *weight at once.
> 
> Then the elephants need to watch weight-lifting events on HBO more than they
> do.  They're (the elephants) doing it the wrong way.

   Maybe you need to watch a little less of them.

Karl