From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Friesen on elastics and sauropod necks
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:22:45 GMT

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>,
> 
>*>If and when I ever change one of my views on any of these topics, I'll be
>*>very up front about it...  you won't have to figure out whether it's
>*>happening or not.
>
>*  Congratulations Ted.  Your dredging up of posts from years ago has made a
>*believer out of me.
> 
>Non Sequitor.

  Correct, it was a "prequitor"

>*>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:

  But when asked how you know species can't evolve larger you give specific
examples (Falcons being your favorite).  Now, how do you determine which species
can get larger and which can't?  If you say the should then they can?

  Secondly, what evidence do you have that any species should be able to get
that large?  If you admit that some can't clearly you must recognize the
possibility that none could.
 
> 1.  Better chances in competition for mating rights within species.
> 2.  Greater abilities to deal with predators/prey from other species.
> 3.  Fewer slings and arrows of outrageous fortune in life generally.

  Since when are any of these specifically delt with by being large?

 1. If an animal grows too large it could loose mating privlidges by not being
able to mount the female without cruching her, or the female may be too large to
be mounted.

 2. Being bigger means more meat for those that hunt in packs.  Why go after the
small fast creatures when you can easily catch the fat large slow creatures?

 3. Fewer "slings and arrows"?  Like the fact that taller people are more likely
to suffer heart problems?  Or that back problems in extremely tall individuals
is much higher than that in shorter?

> 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.

  Or there just aren't any creature capable of it around anymore.

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

  "And he was so modest, too, grandkids."

>*> 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.

  Oh, so a squat thrust is the way Elephants _should_ stand up?  Gee, but then
they would only just barely be able to do it (according to the HN).  Why do it
the hard way?

>*  I'm willing to bet Kaz could have lifted alot more weight if it had been
>*strapped to his back while he lied face down on the ground.  With limbs built
>*for lifting in that direction an animal could do much better.
>*
>A quadruped isn't really built for lifting weight very well.

  Got any references for this?  (No, I don't expect you to actually give me
any)

  I mean you have to prove that being QUADRUPED means not being able to lift
very well.  I certainly agree some aren't built as such, but I need convincing
that it is inherent in being quadruped.

> CARRYING weight
>yes, assuming they've already got the weight up...  But when you think about
>it, the only quadruped which really does anything resembling an efficient
>lift, such as a benchpress, would be a crockadile or some other such
>amphibian, i.e. arms splayed such as a humans are in benching, thus using
>pectorals and triceps.

  Oh, humans arms are designed for bench pressing.  I wasn't aware of that.  Got
any evidence?

  Since an elephant rests 60% of its weight on its front legs (Um, "Mammoths,
mastadonts, and Elephants" I forget which page, but its in the index.  Also
"Mammals of East Africa, volume III D" (I'm nopt 100% sure about the volume
number).  There, two references for you).  Well, since 60% of the weight is on
the front legs, the Elephants bench press (granted upside down) 60% of their
body weight standing up.  By the HN that's like Kaz pressing 60% of his max
squat-thrust weight (What was that again?).  Unless Kaz can perform this feat it
is safe to say Elephants are better at bench pressing that humans.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************