quote:

---

I wish I was a hunter
in search of different food
I wish I was the animal
which fits into that mood

---

[ 12 October 2005: Message edited by: Willowdale Wizard ]

You ask further, Courtney:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CourtneyGQuinn:

conversely....do humans have varying degrees of neocortical, mammalian and reptilian brains?...did brain evolution result from selective manipulation or genetic mutation...i mean ...why evolve brains rather then muscles, fangs or claws...was it a conscious decision?...what animal in their right mind would mate for brains rather then brawn?....did the dawn of intelligence result from dumb luck

---

I doubt that you would put your question quite so precisely as you have in that first sentence if you did not in fact know that that is the case.

quote:

---

why evolve brains rather then muscles, fangs or claws...was it a conscious decision?

---

That's going to get all "chicken and egg" on you real fast.

"Whatcha doin'?"

"Deciding to evolve a brain."

"What are you using to decide that?"

"The brain I evolved."

"But you haven't evolved it yet."

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
Is it true that crocs and gators have not evolved any further in all that time? (Serious question: news to moi.)

---

They have evolved somewhat, but not in major ways.

From this article on a newly-discovered species that lived 40 million years ago (4000 for creationists)

It's almost impossible to keep teleological concepts out of the debate. Skdadl says:

quote:

---

They got to a point of balance with their environment and, unlike human beans, they knew when enough was enough.

---

I understand that Skdadl doesn't believe crocodiles arrived at the conclusion they were well adapted in a concious process (jeez, I hope I understand that ).

Yet our language makes it easier to express the idea this way than in a more correct way.

In any case, evolution works basically with two variables. The natural mutations thrown up by errors in DNA replication, and variations in the environment.

First off remember that most species don't 'adapt', they become extinct. Their environment changes, and no mutations arise that help them life in the new environment. I've read that more than 90% of existing species have become extinct in the history of life on earth. A difficult figure to arrive at, but probably not too far off the mark.

Secondly, evolution doesn't work 'backwards'. As an organism becomes more complex, it is less likely to experience a mutation that helps it cope with environmental change. Thus the high rate of extinction of species.

Crocs aren't the only animal that has a long record without change, sharks are also very old.

I suspect they live on through changing environments is that some configurations of organisms are such that they will do well *no matter what the environment is*. Bacteria are be a great example.

Selection was for the human that could survive the change because he/she was smarter. Some think it was because we can see ahead because of our upright structure. Humans babies are born very immature, so they can fit through the pelvis of an upright aniumal, and then their brains realy grow and we get very top heavy. They don't walk until 1 or 2, and can't run until 3 or4. vis a deer or elephant. Imagine a deer that couldn't walk at birth - lion meat! Big adult brains kept helpless human babies alive, and helpless babies grow big brains.

Humans have been this smart for 40 000 years(?). rapid recient advancement has occured when we had enough spare time and energy to devote to thinking, inventing, and passing information on. If you're struggling to survive you don't invent much, also lack of a good diet and stable life in childhood limits adults.
Aristotle taught plato (or the other way round), who taught Alexander. There wasn't that many of them.
Leonardo thought he could learn everything that was known to man when he was alive, and I think he could have got close(several physical talents excepted).
Once we got the printing press we were off.
Scottish people invented many handy things and this is probably because they were the first country to make education compulsary for the masses. They could afford to remove children from the farms long enough for them to learn logical thinking, reading and writing.

Must have been some battle!

_________________________________________________

Python bites off a little too much of this Everglades gator ... explodes

By DENISE KALETTE
Associated Press
Posted October 5 2005, 2:41 PM EDT

MIAMI -- Alligators have clashed with non-native pythons before in Everglades National Park. But when a 6-foot gator tangled with a 13-foot python recently, the result wasn't pretty.

The snake apparently tried to swallow the gator whole -- and then exploded. Scientists stumbled upon the gory remains last week.

The species have battled with increasing frequency -- scientists have documented four encounters in the last three years. The encroachment of Burmese pythons into the Everglades could threaten an $8 billion restoration project and endanger smaller species, said Frank Mazzotti, a University of Florida wildlife professor.

The gators have had to share their territory with a python population that has swelled over the past 20 years after owners dropped off pythons they no longer wanted in the Everglades. The Asian snakes have thrived in the wet, hot climate.

``Encounters like that are almost never seen in the wild. ... And we here are, it's happened for the fourth time,'' Mazzotti said. In the other cases, the alligator won or the battle was an apparent draw.

``They were probably evenly matched in size,'' Mazzotti said of the latest battle. ``If the python got a good grip on the alligator before the alligator got a good grip on him, he could win.''

While the gator may have been injured before the battle began -- wounds were found on it that apparently were not caused by python bites -- Mazzotti believes it was alive when the battle began. And it may have clawed at the python's stomach as the snake tried to digest it, leading to the blow up.

The python was found with the gator's hindquarters protruding from its midsection. Its stomach still surrounded the alligator's head, shoulders, and forelimbs. The remains were discovered and photographed Sept. 26 by helicopter pilot and wildlife researcher Michael Barron.

The incident has alerted biologists to new potential dangers from Burmese pythons in the Everglades.

``Clearly, if they can kill an alligator they can kill other species,'' Mazzotti said. ``There had been some hope that alligators can control Burmese pythons. ... This indicates to me it's going to be an even draw. Sometimes alligators are going to win and sometimes the python will win.

``It means nothing in the Everglades is safe from pythons, a top down predator,'' Mazzotti said.

Not only can the python kill other reptiles, the snakes will also eat otters, squirrels, endangered woodstorks and sparrows.

While there are thousands of alligators in the Everglades, Joe Wasilewski, a wildlife biologist and crocodile tracker, said its unknown how many pythons there are.

``We need to set traps and do a proper survey,'' of the snakes, he said. At least 150 have been captured in the last two years.

The problem arises when people buy pets they are not prepared to care for.

``People will buy these tiny little snakes and if you do everything right, they're six-feet tall in one year. They lose their appeal, or the owner becomes afraid of it. There's no zoo or attraction that will take it,'' so they release the snakes into the Everglades.

A reproducing snake can have as many as 100 hatchlings, which explains why the snake population has soared, Wasilewski said.

The Burmese snake problem is just part of a larger issue of nonnative animal populations in South Florida, he said. So many iguanas have been discarded in the region that they are gobbling tropical flowers and causing problems for botanists, Wasilewski said.

A 10- or 20-foot python is also large enough to pose a risk to an unwary human, especially a small child, he added.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
maestro, I take your critical refinement of terms above; however, I would complicate things further.

No, I don't believe in teleology on the grand scale, but I do believe that critchurs fulfil their entelechy in the short term ("short" being subject to major interpretation). How's that?

---

I first thought you made up 'entelechy', but I warned myself that it was worth checking. You sent me to the dictionary...if this keeps up I may learn something...

Then I had this weird conversation in my head.

************************
Questioner: Major, what exactly is 'short'?

Major: Well, I interpret it as the opposite of 'long'.

Questioner: So...if you don't want something, that means you 'short' for it?

Major: Well, that's a bit of hypobole.

Questioner: You mean 'hyperbole', don't you?

Major: No, I mean the opposite.

Questioner: Your grasp of etymology is whelming.

************************

quote:

---

I wish I was a hunter
in search of different food
I wish I was the animal
which fits into that mood

---

quote:

---

I wish I was a glow-worm
a glow-worm's never glum
'cause how can you be gloomy when
the sun shines out your bum

---

You know how I learned about entelechy? I once had this beeyootiful cat named Oyster. She was what is called a silver tabby -- well, you have to see it to know. A friend with better biological training than I (not a rigorous achievement) once explained to me that her magical colouring was the effect of agouti, the staged shading of the tips of her fur-hairs, and concluded the sermon by saying, "She is fulfilling her entelechy."

quote:

---

Python bites off a little too much of this Everglades gator ... explodes

---

i agree with everything you stated....i particularily agree with the "upright structure" idea....

did you know that the Sahara desert- (an area the size of the US (excluding Alaska (which will probably be ceded to China because of debt (i digress))))- was a lush, tropical rain forest 10 000 years ago?....perhaps primates evolved in Africa because of the process that turned forest to desert...RADIATION....if most of the world was covered in forest...maybe trees/leafs acted as a shield/canopy to block mutation causing radiation from changing genetic structures in monkies.

..so perhaps the radiation soaking Africa did a number of things: 1)destroyed forest habitat causing monkies to fight over remaining lands, 2)created savannah and deserts almost forcing migrating/fighting monkies to walk upright to find new land (and avoid lions) and 3)soaked monkey brains/bodies/DNA with mutation causing sunlight

i often wonder why the Chinese were the only people worldwide (perhaps American First Nations peoples as well) to note and record the supernovae that occured in the Crab Nebula in 1054 AD....the Chinese said the light/radiation/photons resulting from said supernovae was so strong that it was visible for weeks during the day!!!

why didn't Europeans and other people worldwide record and note such an illuminating event?...perhaps it was cloudy everywhere but China?....and if it was cloudy out...would that be a good or bad thing?...maybe a good soaking of vast amounts of cosmic radiation isn't such a bad thing once and a while

methinks many answers to the question about genetic mutation versus genetic selection will be answered in roughly 10 years when the scientific community finally gets around to sending a probe to Jupiters moon Europa....Europa is thought to be a moon covered by a layer of water and then a layer of ice.....chemosynthesis in the worlds oceans have proved that life can be supported without photosynthesis...perhaps underwater ocean vents on Europa use the gravity from Jupiter to flux out ample nutrients from the crust/core for life to flourish....i mean...i wouldn't think there'd be too much genetic mutation occuring deep in an ocean (especially one covered by ice)....but such an environment would be the perfect breeding ground for countless generations of stable genetic selection.....we earthlings happen to be lucky that we have a big brother, brown dwarf planet like Jupiter to attract most extinction causing bodies via its great gravity well....we also happen to be lucky that we have a relatively big moon to attract any asteroids/comets that might wipe out life on earth in an instant...it would seem living in an ocean would be safer then living on land....the water might act as another barrier towards preventing quick, mass extinction..but also...underwater life might lack the radiation/rays that helps speed up the evolutionary genetic process

here's a threory....what if early man (or maybe they were still mostly monkies) abused the new technology called fire like modern man abuses fossil fuels?...perhaps because of the ice age early man needed to access fuel for heating to stay alive....maybe early man used so much fire that it overwelmed mother nature....what if fire was abused as a fuel source so much so that it caused massive and rapid deforestization and desertification